Private sponsorship, not clickbait polls, shows the way to better refugee policy

Policymakers and academics will often tell you not to put too much faith in public opinion polls. However, when a poll gets as much traction as one released by the CBC on voter attitudes leading up to an election, one must take notice.

This poll of 4,500 Canadians shows that 57 percent believe Canada should not be accepting more refugees. But even to call this a public opinion poll is a stretch. This was not a representative sample—the respondents self-selected into the poll and there is no reason to suspect that they are a representative sample of Canadian attitudes. There is no reason to think that 4,500 self-selected individuals would represent the attitudes of Canadians.

In contrast, the Government of Canada reports that 67 percent of Canadians support current levels of immigration and that 88 percent of immigrants and refugees have a strong sense of belonging in Canada. It’s unlikely that immigrants would feel this way if over half of Canadians were actively opposed to more refugees in Canada, or if, as the CBC poll also suggests, 24 percent of Canadians were worried that too many immigrants are visible minorities.

Relying on unscientific internet polls is a bad strategy for determining how Canadians believe parties should approach refugee resettlement going into an election year. A plan should be presented to all political parties for consideration that will make refugee resettlement better for Canada and for refugees. That plan is strengthening the private sponsorship program.

Canada’s Private Sponsorship of Refugees Program began in 1979 as a response to the massive displacement of people in the aftermath of war in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. Private sponsors are people and associations who voluntarily sponsor a refugee, assuming responsibility for them for at least one year after they arrive in Canada. In the two years following its introduction, Canadians sponsored 35,000 people from Southeast Asia through this program. Canadians’ response to the Syrian crisis shows that this program is still strong, as support groups have been overwhelmed with offers to volunteer, and sponsors continue to plead with the Canadian government to allow them to sponsor more refugees.

This, of course, does not line up with the supposed attitudes of Canadians as presented by the CBC’s online poll.

Recently, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) evaluated the early outcomes of Syrian refugees admitted between November 4, 2015, and March 1, 2016. Their study showed that privately sponsored refugees (PSRs) had better outcomes than refugees who are resettled by the government (GARs, or government-assisted refugees).

Among PSRs, 83.0 percent reported having help in learning how to shop for food, compared with 69.9 percent of GARs. When buying clothes, furniture and other essentials, 72.4 percent of PSRs reported receiving help, compared with 54.5 percent of GARs. Among PSRs, 63.9 percent were shown how to find a doctor on their own, compared with only 38.8 percent of GARs. And only 32.7 percent of PSRs said they encountered difficulties in learning English and/or French and faced language barriers when they first arrived, compared with 55.1 percent of GARs.

The CBC’s poll suggests that Canadians want more emphasis on economic immigration over refugee intake. Let’s accept that this is true. IRCC’s study found that over half of adult PSRs (52.8 percent) reported that they were currently employed in Canada, compared with just 9.7 percent of Syrian GARs. For 53.8 percent of PSRs, learning one of the official languages was the main barrier to finding a job, compared with 82.1 percent of GARs. The challenges of settling and adjusting to life in Canada were cited by 18.1 percent of PSRs but by 32.1 percent of Syrian GARs as the reason why they hadn’t found a job yet.

In short, IRCC’s study shows what common sense suggests: that people with a support system in place are able to come to Canada and hit the ground running. This system works so well that countries like Argentina, Australia, Germany, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom have experimented with it.

If we take CBC’s word for it and believe that refugee resettlement is a challenge for the Canadian government, there are concrete steps that we can take toward improving it.

First, Canada needs to shift immigration levels to accommodate more PSRs. The levels set by the government simply do not match the eagerness of Canadians to act as private sponsors. Instead of responding to private sponsors demonstrating they have the resources and willingness to take on the responsibility for supporting new refugees, the government has capped private sponsorship application intake since 2012 due to its own lack of resources. It is time to reallocate the resources the government allocated to GAR processing and commit them to PSRs.

Second, Canada needs to allow sponsorship of applicants fleeing war zones without official refugee status. In 2015, the government allowed some categories of private sponsorship groups to sponsor people fleeing Syria and Iraq who had not obtained official recognition by the UN Refugee Agency or by a foreign state. In late 2016, the government capped the number of people eligible for this type of application in 2017 at 1,000 (reached in just a few weeks) and has no eliminated this option completely. This puts a serious barrier on community enthusiasm to sponsor refugees.

The upcoming federal election will likely devolve into the typical political match to determine who can play on the emotions of Canadians more when it comes to immigration, using immigrant intake as a political messaging tool rather than putting forward ideas of substance. CBC’s representation of a self-selected online poll as a meaningful representation of Canadian public opinion provides ammunition to parties hostile to immigration and refugees as a way to stoke fear rather than engage in substantive discussion.

There is still an opportunity to instead debate how refugee intake in Canada can be improved in a substantive way, rather than the way that maximizes CBC clicks. It’s time to take a serious look at strengthening the private sponsorship program in Canada.

Fighting hate. Even when it’s hard.

Fighting hate. Even when it’s hard.

I spent a long time deciding whether or not to post this. I don’t expect it will make my friends on the right or the left happy. But after reading a complete list of the murder victims of the Christchurch terrorist attack last week, I see something constructive (albeit small) that can be done.

So I’m addressing myself to two camps who don’t see each other as allies but should try to find more common ground—especially here.

Marketing Hate: Inside Identity Evropa’s Neo-Nazi Messaging

We don’t have to listen to every seminar or comb through the Slack logs of self-professed white supremacists (that sounds depressing), but we should take the time to understand their strategy and what it’s meant to accomplish so that we can do our best to make sure it’s not successful. Read more

Why we should teach girls (and boys) to be feminists AND individualists

Why we should teach girls (and boys) to be feminists AND individualists

“Free people trade. They form associations. They employ one another. They create communities. Even “atomized individuals” tend to form molecules.”Virginia Postrel

“It is thus that man, who can only subsist in society, was fitted by nature to that situation for which he was made. All the members of human society stand in need of each other’s assistance, and all are likewise exposed to mutual injuries.”Adam Smith

FEE recently published Why We Should Teach Girls to be Individualists Instead of Feminists. Unsurprisingly (sigh.) it has been doing exceptionally well on libertarian social media. But replace every instance of “feminist” in the piece with “Christian”, “Jew”, or “Muslim”, and it should quickly become obvious that a blanket condemnation of groups isn’t necessary or even helpful for libertarians.

The selective distaste for feminism among libertarians, even those who aren’t particularly conservative or right-wing, is not only inconsistent (normally a deal breaker for this particular coalition), it is ahistorical. See also here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and… look, you can use Google, right?

Feminism has been a part of liberalism for a very long time—including the radical liberalism that makes up much of the history of libertarianism—because liberals believe in the importance of the individual. There are feminists who reject or undermine the role of individualism. There are members of most groups who do so. But though libertarians might eventually convince feminists otherwise with enough indignant foot stomping, there’s nothing inherently collectivist about feminism.

What pieces like the one in question forget when they insist that there’s no place for something like feminism in libertarianism forget is that liberals also believe in the importance of groups.

Read more
Biotech and repugnance

Biotech and repugnance

Re: MIT Technology Review: China’s CRISPR twins might have had their brains inadvertently enhanced.

Imagine there was a vaccine that pregnant women could get that would make their babies immune to HIV/AIDS, make their brains more resilient to suffering a stroke, and make it easier for them to learn and form memories.

We would rightfully regard someone who reacted with “visceral repulsion and sadness” to healthy, happy twin baby girls whose mother received this vaccine as, well, viscerally repulsive and sad. He’d be lumped in with hardcore anti-vaxxers and we’d all move on.

We would call for steps to make this vaccine universally available, but wouldn’t want it banned because not everyone would have access—after all, the distributional effects of new technology are something we can usually address. Almost all (all?) technology becomes democratized over time. It’s why Jeff Bezos’ phone is probably not that much better than yours, if it’s better at all. Read more

Hayek was not a conservative. Here’s why.

This post originally appeared on 22 April, 2016 at (Mostly) Free.

Hayek’s essay ‘Why I Am Not a Conservative‘ is often misremembered as a defensive claim that says conservatives are invested in traditions while liberals want to move forward, and since Hayek considers himself a liberal (in the original sense of the word), he does not want to be mistaken for a conservative. Because Hayek was an advocate of emergent orders who argued against remaking them wholesale, this argument would set him up to fail. But it’s not his argument.

‘Liberal’ and ‘conservative’ as they’re used colloquially don’t fit Hayek’s definitions. As political identifiers, both are increasingly vacuous. These terms need to be defined, not because one is good and the other is bad, but because both are useful. The essay isn’t mounting a defence, it’s setting out definitions.

If you could say to Hayek, “But you aren’t describing what conservatives believe now!” I think he might respond, “Of course not. That’s why I wrote the essay.” Conservatism has real meaning, but it doesn’t imply a timeless set of concrete policy proposals. Read more

Immigration and unicorn thinking

Designed by Freepik

There is a popular myth among some libertarians and many conservatives that restricting immigration is something that’s consistent with the ideals of small government. Immigration policy, they say, is about policing of the border and regulating foreigners, not about infringing on the property and individual rights of citizens. To the chagrin of some, I concede that this is a consistent belief for a libertarian to hold.

But it’s a belief based on “unicorn” policy, not reality. It’s akin to our friends on the left who believe in helping low-income people by raising the minimum wage. Consistent, but based on how they imagine it should work rather than on what both theory and experience suggest. The simple fact is that you can’t control immigration without controlling the citizens of a country. Read more

Bernier’s bad bet

Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press

Maxime Bernier is taking a gamble. He believes that there is a large, disenfranchised voting bloc in Canada on which he can capitalise to form a new party that, he says, will focus on smaller, constitutional government that respects taxpayers and opposes economic favouritism—though he’s spent more time in the news for culture warring.

His gamble seems to be that the anti-immigration and anti-political correctness crowds to whom he’s been throwing bones will (a) make up a part, but not the basis, of his political coalition, and (b) be willing to make concessions on these issues to support a core mission of smaller, constitutionally restrained government.

Unfortunately for Bernier, if he’s sincere that this is his goal he’s made his gamble based on an out-of-date understanding of politics in Western countries. The political climate in which this was likely to succeed—the one in which Bernier has spent his political career—is changing.
Read more

The wrong kind of anti-democratic

Ontario’s Progressive Conservative government has announced that it will cut the size of Toronto’s city council almost in half.

This odd decision (mid-election, it’s an expensive one) creates an opportunity to address an interesting quirk about Ontario’s right-of-centre party. Sometimes people will say something along the lines of, “LOL!! Progressive Conservative? Sounds like an oxymoron to me!”

A better understanding of early 20th-century politics, progressivism, and conservatism can show us why it’s not. It also helps us explore why the Ontario PCs might support smaller municipal councils and why doing so might be a mistake.  Read more

In Fostering Free Speech, Communication Is Key

The campus free speech debate is an important one, but it has unfortunately been hijacked by two opposing sides that hold two polarizing positions. On one side, there are the people who firmly believe speech can cause harm, and anything perceived to be hate speech must be shut down by any means necessary, including sometimes by violence. On the other side, there are people who firmly believe there is a free-speech crisis on campus led by post-modern neo-Marxists with the goal of shutting down only the speech they deem offensive.

Yet it’s wrong to see the free-speech debate as only containing two arguments. There is an alternative view. That view posits that there simply isn’t enough communication between those who take issue with offensive speech and prefer to shut it down, and those who believe “social justice warriors” are bringing about the destruction of free speech. Instead of actually speaking to one another, they shout, they break things, and they call each other names. They even accuse each other of contributing to the destruction of modern civilization, among other overly-dramatic claims.

Read more