Tag Archives: immigration

The Promise and Peril of the H-1B Visa

Posted on by
Reply

When I first arrived in Silicon Valley in 1991, I did so on an H-1B visa. The program was brand new at the time, created to ensure that highly skilled professionals could move quickly into positions where American companies faced genuine gaps in expertise. My own case reflected that original vision perfectly. The U.S. firm that acquired my UK employer needed continuity and leadership in managing the transition of products and markets. I was the senior person left standing after the American parent stripped away the British management team, and my experience as product manager made me indispensable.

The process worked with remarkable speed, and the offer was more than fair. A $75,000 salary in 1991, equivalent to nearly $180,000 today, was a clear acknowledgment of the skills and responsibilities I brought with me. The system was designed to secure talent, not to undercut wages, and for me it delivered exactly what was promised: a career-defining opportunity and a way for an American company to gain the expertise it needed to thrive.

But what worked so well for me in 1991 has, over the decades, drifted far from that original intent. The H-1B program was meant to bring the best and brightest from abroad to fill roles that were difficult to source domestically. Instead, it has increasingly become a pipeline for large outsourcing firms that import entry-level workers at far lower wages than their American counterparts. Where the original standard was senior-level knowledge and proven skill, many visas now go to contractors whose roles could often be filled within the domestic labor pool.

This misuse creates what one former U.S. immigration official has called a “split personality disorder” for the program. Roughly half the visas still go to companies that genuinely need high-level specialists and can offer long-term careers, but the other half are captured by consulting firms whose business model depends on renting out lower-cost workers. That shift undermines both American workers, who see wages suppressed, and skilled foreign professionals, who are often treated as interchangeable resources rather than valued contributors.

The lottery system has further distorted the program. Once a simple way to fairly distribute a limited number of visas, it has been gamed by firms flooding the system with multiple applications. The recent drop in lottery bids, after the government cracked down on such practices, revealed just how much abuse had taken hold.

If the H-1B visa is to remain credible, it needs to return to its original purpose: rewarding specialized knowledge, proven expertise, and long-term commitment. Proposals to allocate visas based on wage levels rather than random chance would be a step in the right direction. They would align the system once again with its founding principle: bringing in the kind of high-value, hard-to-replace professionals that the U.S. economy truly needs.

My own journey in 1991 demonstrates the potential of the H-1B program when it is used as intended. It was a bridge for talent, a tool for competitiveness, and a life-changing opportunity. But unless it is reformed, the program risks being remembered not for what it enabled, but for how it was exploited.

A Dangerous Symbol: Why Alberta’s Citizenship Marker Is a Badge of Exclusion

Posted on by
Reply

A government that tattoos its citizens with a loyalty stamp is not protecting democracy. It is manufacturing division.

Alberta’s plan to add a visible Canadian citizenship marker to driver’s licences and provincial photo IDs is sold as a pragmatic fix for administrative headaches, and a modest boost to election integrity. In reality it is a blunt instrument that will stigmatize newcomers, invite profiling, escalate privacy risks, and do virtually nothing to solve the narrow problems the government points to. This policy is not about efficiency. It is about visibility, and visibility in this case is a tool for exclusion.

Start with the claim that this will protect elections. The province has pointed to a handful of isolated incidents to justify a universal treatment of every person who carries a licence in Alberta. The scale does not remotely justify the sweep. Elections Alberta has not identified a systemic problem that requires permanently marking who is a citizen on the everyday card that everyone carries. There are far less intrusive ways to strengthen the integrity of the ballot than turning driver’s licences into a public ledger of status. If the problem is rare, the solution should be targeted, not universal.

Now consider the everyday, lived consequences of adding a visible citizenship marker. A small tag on a card is not a neutral bureaucratic convenience. It is a social signal that will be read within seconds by a wide range of people who exercise power over daily life: police officers, service providers, employers, landlords, front-line staff in health clinics and banks. The absence of that tag is, in practice, the same as a visible mark. When a human scans an ID and sees no “CAN” or similar symbol, they will know the person is likely not a citizen. That knowledge will change behavior.

The harm here is predictable. Racialized and immigrant communities will carry this burden disproportionately. Citizenship status correlates strongly with place of birth, language, and race. Policies that place a visible marker on status therefore do discrimination by another name. The Alberta Human Rights Act protects characteristics such as race, colour, ancestry and place of origin. A policy that has the predictable effect of singling out people because of those characteristics should be treated with deep suspicion. The government’s design converts private legal status into a public marker that will be used, intentionally or not, to exclude, interrogate and penalize.

Privacy is another casualty. Adding more personal data to a card that lives in pockets and purses increases the risk of misuse and error. The same announcement that proposed the citizenship marker also proposed including health numbers on the same cards. Those are sensitive identifiers. Combining multiple markers and numbers into a single, widely used document creates a tempting target for fraud and function creep. Once institutions are accustomed to seeing citizenship on an ID, the line between appropriate use and mission creep becomes dangerously thin. History shows that extra data on everyday documents rarely stays limited to the original, narrow purpose.

There is also the basic problem of accuracy. Mistakes happen. Bureaucratic records are imperfect. Imagine being wrongly marked, or left unmarked, and then facing a delay in accessing health care, government supports, or a job because an overworked clerk or a skeptical stranger read your card and assumed something about your rights. Fixing those mistakes takes time, money and dignity that many people cannot spare. That risk is not hypothetical. Governments themselves admit to data mismatches and unexplained records when they discuss the systems they use. We should not make people pay for a government’s sloppy data by making their legal status visible on a daily basis.

Finally, consider the chilling effect. Communities that feel targeted withdraw. They stop reporting crime. They stop seeking services. They withdraw from civic life. That is a perverse outcome for a democratic society. If the government’s aim is social cohesion and civic participation, stamping people’s IDs with a citizenship marker pushes in precisely the opposite direction.

There are sensible alternatives that protect both security and dignity. Back-end verification systems allow agencies to check status when the law requires it without turning every encounter into a status interrogation. Voluntary proof-of-citizenship cards could be issued for the small number of people who want a single card for passport office interactions or specific benefits applications. Strengthening poll-worker training and refining procedures at the point of service can shore up election integrity without branding the population. A proper privacy impact assessment and an independent human-rights review should be prerequisites for any change that touches identity.

This is not merely a policy error. It is a marker of values. Do we want a province that solves narrow administrative problems by creating new, visible categories that will be used to sort people? Or do we want a province that insists on privacy, on minimizing state visibility into people’s legal status, and on solving problems with proportionate measures?

If Alberta proceeds, expect legal pushback. Policies with predictable discriminatory effects should, and will, be challenged. Human-rights law recognizes that discrimination can occur through effects rather than explicit language. A seemingly neutral policy that disproportionately burdens persons who belong to protected groups will not withstand careful legal scrutiny.

The loudest argument for the citizenship marker is convenience. Convenience is not a trump card when human dignity hangs in the balance. We can tidy up administrative processes without creating a social scoring system that singles people out in grocery stores, hospitals, and bus stations. We can secure ballots without making identity a visible badge of belonging.

The test for public policy is simple. Does it solve the problem at hand with the least intrusion necessary? Adding citizenship to everyone’s everyday ID fails that test. It substitutes spectacle for problem solving, visibility for nuance, and bluntness for proportionality.

Alberta should drop this plan, sit down with civil-society groups, privacy experts and human-rights lawyers, and design targeted, less intrusive solutions. Failing that, opponents should prepare for court, for public protest and for relentless political pressure. Democracies survive on inclusion, not on visible lists of who belongs. If we care about the health of our civic life we should resist anything that turns identity into a signal for exclusion.

Sources: 
Global News, “Alberta adding proof of Canadian citizenship to provincial driver’s licences”, Jack Farrell and Lisa Johnson, Sept 15, 2025.
CityNews Edmonton, “Immigration lawyer, critics raise concerns about citizenship marker on Alberta ID”, Sept 16, 2025.
Statement from Premier Danielle Smith, official announcement posts, Sept 2025.
Institute for Canadian Citizenship commentary, reaction coverage, Sept 2025.
Alberta Human Rights Act commentary and analysis, relevant legal background.

Blood and Creed: Vice President Vance’s Reimagining of American Citizenship

Posted on by
Reply

On July 5, 2025, Vice President J.D. Vance delivered a notable address at the Claremont Institute’s Statesmanship Award Dinner in San Diego. For a man in the second-highest office of the land, his treatment of American citizenship was striking, not for its novelty, but for its clear departure from foundational norms. 

From Creed to Kinship
Vance began by challenging the idea of the United States as a creedal nation, a polity bound by shared principles of the Declaration of Independence, calling it simultaneously over-inclusive (drawing in “hundreds of millions, maybe billions” who support American ideals abroad) and under-inclusive (excluding those with ancestral ties, but extremist beliefs). He presented a contrasting model of citizenship rooted in ancestry, place, and “blood-and-soil.” With sentimental reference to generations of his family buried in a Kentucky cemetery, Vance argued that belonging should be tied to living history and rootedness rather than abstract ideals. 

This represents more than rhetorical flourish. It signals a paradigm shift, from civic affiliation to ethnic membership. In Vance’s terms, ancestry becomes a qualifier; heritage becomes identity.

Critique from the Center and Beyond
Historians and public intellectuals wasted little time pushing back. Ambassador Daniel Fried offered a powerful critique in The National Interest, opposing Vance’s redefinition for its reversal of Abraham Lincoln’s post–Civil War vision. Lincoln had conceived the nation as “a new nation, conceived in liberty”, not as a bloodline-bound entity. Fried emphasized that Lincoln saw citizenship as a matter of shared principles, not ancestry, drawing on immigrants who “feel…they are part of us” through creed.

Historian and public author John Ganz described Vance’s stance as an “anti-Declaration.” He highlighted the inconsistency of invoking Revolutionary and Civil War symbols while undermining the very ideals those conflicts advanced. Ganz drew contrast with Harry Jaffa, whose defense of Lincoln affirmed that “all men are created equal” meant just that, regardless of bloodline.

Tad Stoermer’s “Heritage Citizenship”
Into this debate steps Tad Stoermer: public historian, educator, and author, who coined the term “heritage citizenship” to categorize this turn toward ancestry-based belonging. Stoermer views this not as nostalgic reflection but as active project: a “restoration” of a racially-defined First Republic rooted in whiteness. The goal, he suggests, is the rewriting of constitutional logic, to reassert lineage as citizenship’s arbiter. 

Why This Matters Today
If Vance’s vision is enacted, it would have real-world consequences:

1. Birthright Citizenship at Risk
The 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship based on birth within U.S. jurisdiction: an inclusive, principle-based foundation. Vance’s model, however, introduces a lineage test, posing a legal challenge to this constitutional baseline.

2. Political and Social Exclusion
Consider the millions of post-1965 immigrant-descended Americans: legal, patriotic, educated, yet lacking “Appalachian blood.” Their citizenship, under Vance’s rubric, becomes negotiable, diluted by ancestry.

3. Ideological Flexibility for Elites
Despite its broad implications, heritage citizenship allows selective exceptions, for political elites, spouses, or allies (e.g., Vance’s own wife, born in California to Indian immigrants), which erodes the internal consistency of the ideology. Vance can romanticize heritage, while simultaneously reserving membership for his inner circle.

Going Backwards – Constitutionally and Symbolically
This vision directly counters Lincoln’s redefinition of the Union after 1863. At Gettysburg, he consecrated the Union’s cause as “a new birth of freedom,”establishing citizenship through legal equality. Vance’s model, in contrast, retreats into pre-14th Amendment logic, where race and lineage determined belonging.

It also undermines the United States’ role on the global stage. Fried points out that the American creed, its principle-based identity, enabled it to attract “hundreds of millions, maybe billions” of adherents abroad, forming what he describes as a “positive-sum” global leadership structure  . Heritage-based identity, by contrast, is zero-sum, exclusive, and inward-looking.

A Historian’s Judgment
For any senior historian, the implications are stark:
• Constitutional Regression: Voting rights and equal protection, hard-won through amendments and civil rights struggles, are put back on the chopping block.
• Political Inequality: Heritage citizenship enables a bifurcated class of Americans, those with “authentic” lineage and those without.
• National Myth versus National Reality: The U.S. has always been a nation of immigrants and wanderers. Vance’s speech polices belonging by ancestry, contra 250 years of integrated identity-building.

Vice President Vance’s Claremont Institute speech is not merely poetic, it is profoundly political. It stakes out heritage, soil, and blood as qualifiers of sovereignty. Critics like Fried, Ganz, and Stoermer understand this as both intellectual and legal retrenchment. The choice now faces American democracy: Will we continue as a principle-based republic, where citizenship is claimed through belief, law, and shared action? Or will we succumb to a lineage-based model that narrows the definition of who belongs?

In highlighting ancestry over creed, Vance’s model asks an inflammatory question: does American identity belong to those we include, or those we exclude? The answer, for nearly two centuries, has been creed. It must remain so.

In a nation guided by Vance-style heritage criteria, citizenship would shift from being a legal, civic covenant to a cultural inheritance. That model would disqualify immigrants, their children, Jewish Americans, those of Latino or Asian descent, even well-known political figures, unless they belong to the “right” ancestry group. Yet the model grants latitude for elite figures, a glaring hypocrisy exposing the project’s exclusionary core. It’s not just a nostalgic vision, it’s a blueprint for a tiered citizenry: real if you’re insider heritage, negotiable if not.

A Commonwealth Without Borders: The Future of Free Movement?

Posted on by
Reply

The idea of free movement between Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the UK has gained increasing attention in recent years. Often discussed under the banner of CANZUK, the proposal envisions a system similar to the European Union’s freedom of movement, allowing citizens of these four nations to live and work freely across their borders. At first glance, the case for such an arrangement seems compelling. These countries share deep historical ties, legal and political traditions rooted in the British system, and comparable economic standards. Advocates argue that freer movement would not only reinforce cultural and economic connections but also provide practical benefits, such as addressing labor shortages and strengthening diplomatic relationships.

The idea is not without precedent. Australia and New Zealand already enjoy a form of free movement under the Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement (TTTA), which has allowed their citizens to live and work in either country with relatively few restrictions for decades. This arrangement has functioned smoothly, with both nations benefiting from a flexible labor market and strong cross-border ties. Extending a similar model to include Canada and the UK, proponents argue, would be a natural evolution of these existing relationships. Many supporters also point to the European Union’s Schengen Zone as proof that such agreements can work on a larger scale, allowing economic migration without overwhelming social systems.

However, beyond the rhetoric of shared heritage and common values, the proposal faces considerable economic and political challenges. While these nations are broadly comparable in terms of economic development, there are still notable differences in wages, cost of living, and employment opportunities. Australia and Canada, for instance, consistently rank among the most desirable destinations for migrants due to their higher wages and strong job markets. Without proper safeguards, this could lead to an uneven flow of migration, with workers from the UK and New Zealand gravitating towards the more prosperous economies of Canada and Australia, potentially creating labor shortages in their home countries.

Another critical concern is the impact on housing and infrastructure. Canada and Australia are already grappling with severe housing affordability crises, particularly in major cities like Toronto, Vancouver, Sydney, and Melbourne. An influx of migrants, even from culturally similar nations, could put additional strain on these markets, driving up housing prices and exacerbating shortages. While proponents argue that increased migration could also help address labor shortages in construction and other essential industries, critics warn that these benefits may take years to materialize, while the immediate impact on housing demand would be felt almost instantly.

The political landscape also complicates the feasibility of such a proposal. While public opinion polls have shown reasonable support for closer ties between these nations, immigration remains a contentious issue in all four. Brexit was, in part, driven by the UK’s desire to regain control over its borders, and many voters would likely resist any proposal that reintroduces a form of free movement, even if limited to Commonwealth nations. In Canada and Australia, immigration policy is a key electoral issue, and governments are unlikely to relinquish control over who enters their borders. National security concerns also play a role, as harmonizing immigration and vetting policies across four different governments would be a bureaucratic challenge.

Despite these obstacles, the concept of closer mobility between these nations is unlikely to disappear. While full free movement may be politically unrealistic in the near term, policymakers could explore intermediate steps, such as streamlined work visas, mutual residency pathways, or limited agreements for specific professions. Such measures would allow for greater mobility without the risks of an uncontrolled migration flow. Ultimately, while the dream of a CANZUK free movement zone remains an enticing one, its success will depend on whether political leaders can balance economic opportunity with the realities of national interests and public sentiment.

Let’s Merge Canada Post into Service Canada to Provide Integrated Essential Services to Non-Urban Communities

Posted on by
Reply

With the future of Canada Post in danger, perhaps its time for some out of the box thinking? While inner city folk have a multitude of options for parcel and regular mail delivery, due to the high density of their population, there are many Canadian communities that exclusively rely on the services of the federal agency for both business and personal mail and parcel delivery. While it is clear that the status quo will no longer work for Canada Post, there is still a strong requirement to provide programs and services to Canadians, so instead of franchising, in an effort to streamline and lower costs, lets go big!

Establishing a Service Canada/Canada Post location in every rural, northern, and remote community would bring critical services closer to Canadians who currently often face challenges accessing them. Such an initiative would not only address long-standing gaps in financial, postal, and government service delivery, but also strengthen ties across the nation, reduce inequities, while leveraging the expanding digital infrastructure to provide accessible, timely citizen support and services. 

Canada’s vast geography often creates a sense of isolation for rural and remote communities, both physically and economically. Establishing local hubs for essential services would help foster a greater sense of inclusion by ensuring these communities are more connected to the rest of the country. By providing access to programs such as passports, employment insurance, and pension benefits, Service Canada/Canada Post outlets could act as bridges between remote areas and the national economy. Additionally, these centres could serve as venues for local engagement and civic participation, reinforcing Canada’s commitment to serving all its citizens, regardless of location.

The absence of adequate banking services in rural and remote areas creates significant inequities. Residents are often forced to rely on payday lenders or travel long distances to access financial services. I know that the only bank branch in my local village closed a few years ago during the pandemic, and now locals have a 20 or 30 minute drive to the nearest branches. Introducing postal banking through this new merged agency would provide an affordable alternative, allowing residents to manage their finances locally. Many other G7 countries offer financial services via postal outlets, especially in non-urban communities. Similarly, access to Service Canada programs—such as Employment Insurance and social assistance—without leaving the community would ensure more equitable access to resources that urban Canadians often take for granted.

These hubs could provide tailored services to Indigenous communities, many of which are in remote areas. A culturally sensitive approach to service delivery could address historical gaps and help foster reconciliation by ensuring Indigenous peoples have equitable access to essential resources.

Although digital technology has transformed service delivery across Canada, many rural and remote areas lack reliable internet infrastructure, making it difficult to access online services. New federal service outlets could serve as hybrid digital and in-person centres, enabling face-to-face interactions for complex needs while providing access to online resources for others. For example, trained staff could assist residents in navigating digital platforms for government programs or applying for financial products.

Additionally, these centres could act as technology hubs by offering internet access, video conferencing facilities, and digital literacy training. This would allow residents to connect with government representatives or other professionals in urban centres without leaving their communities, reducing costs and logistical barriers. They would also support the federal government’s goal of reducing emissions, as residents would no longer need to travel long distances for basic services.

Beyond providing essential services, these hubs would stimulate local economies by creating jobs and supporting entrepreneurship. For example, reliable postal services would make it easier for local businesses to engage in e-commerce, shipping goods to larger markets and sourcing supplies at lower costs. Similarly, residents could order essential items online, knowing they could rely on consistent delivery services.

While I am the first to criticize Canada Post’s senior management, and their lack of focus, the establishment of Service Canada/Canada Post locations in rural, northern, and remote communities is a visionary step toward creating a more inclusive, connected, and equitable Canada. Back in the early 2000s these two agencies tried to promote the idea that they should be the face of the federal government for all citizens-focused services. I attended a large meeting at Canada Post HQ where it was argued that Canadians needed a single service portal, and that traditionally these agencies were already known to citizens. Twenty years ago, federal departments were just becoming familiar with the Web as an online service platform and weren’t ready to give up their individual brands, but perhaps it’s time to rethink this position and consider a merged, single agency,

Finally, I feel that the new agency should be called Service Canada. This name falls in line with provincial thinking and it’s time to let go of the Canada Post brand and recognize a larger, integrated approach to providing Canadian with the services and programs that they need.