Mediaboss Marketing

Immigration Minister AhmedHussensaid the federal government is clamping down on marriage fraud even as it scraps atwo-year co-habitation requirement for newcomers sponsored by their spouses.

Hussen said the conditional permanent residency, which was brought in by the Conservatives in 2012, wasleaving some women in harmful domestic situations.

"We're doing away with a measure that could potentially result in people choosing reluctantly to remain in abusive relationships as opposed to moving out and getting out of those abusive relationships," he said at a news conference in Toronto Friday.

The Conservative measure requirednewcomers to live in a conjugal relationship with their sponsoring spouse for two years or face deportation.

When the Conservatives enacted it, then immigration minister Jason Kenney said the change targeted con artistswho dupe Canadians into marriage then dump them once they get to Canada. Itwas also designed to deal with "marriages of convenience," where two persons pretend to be in love for one to gain entry to Canada, often in exchange formoney.

ButHussensaid the policy did not achieve itsintended outcomes, and that reversing course reflects the government's commitment to eradicating gender-based violence.

Rescinding the conditional permanent residency is also a recognition that the vast majority of marriages are genuine.

But Hussen said the government is "doubly committed" to detecting fraudulent marriages.

Frontline immigration officers will carry out stringent screening procedures, Hussen said. And a five-year waiting period will remain for people who have either sponsored a spouse or been sponsored themselves and who want to use the program again.

Continue reading here:
Liberals 'doubly committed' to tackling marriage fraud while ending 2-year spousal residency rule - CBC.ca

Can there be a classical liberal political science?

To answer that question, it is instructive to examine how classical liberal ideas have developed and what disciplines have shaped the classical liberal tradition most.

And to begin, we must acknowledge that contemporary scholarly classical liberalism has developed in an imbalanced way.

By far the greatest intellectual investment has been in economics.

There are good reasons for this, of course: the understanding of market processes and market ordering that liberal economists have given us is central to an appreciation of the counterintuitive idea that unplanned and decentralized voluntary action can yield beneficial social results.

The insight that the market economy is a spontaneous order has been a crucial one for the development of modern classical liberalism as a whole. And economists, those who study market processes and orders, have a disproportionate tendency to be sympathetic to open and liberal markets. Most of the founders of the Mont Pelerin Societythe organization that shaped the intellectual agenda of postwar classical liberalismwere economists (of one methodological stripe or another).

Somewhere behind economics, in an order I wouldnt know how to rank, come law and philosophy.

Classical liberal legal scholarship has encompassed both US constitutional law, recovering a sense of the commitment to liberty found in the US Constitutions protection of rights as well as its structure of federalism and separated powers; and private law, especially in the law-and-economics tradition.

Classical liberal philosophy has taught us a great deal about the meaning and intellectual structure of rights, liberty, and justice, and about the vision of human well-being and flourishing that animates a concern with freedom. And, in a broad way, these streams of research and scholarship in economics, law, and philosophy have complemented and enriched each other, contributing to the emergence of a distinctive kind of classical liberal social theorythe humane studies highlighted in the name of the organization that hosts this website.

In contrast, political science, including the kind of political theory that is done within political science, has been relatively neglected in this ongoing scholarly program. (So has sociology; another topic for another time.)

This is not, as some readers will be tempted to think, because political scientists are sympathetic to the state as economists are sympathetic to the market. Political scientists are in routinely in the business of studying things we dont find attractive: wars, coups, revolutions, genocides, civil wars, authoritarianism, populism, voter ignorance, and institutional dysfunction of all kinds.

Yet the study of those topics through the lens of political science ought to be a key part of a classical liberal social theory.

We dont have to agree with those who think that markets and civil society are constituted by the state to see that they may be either facilitated or jeopardized by political outcomes. War, civil war, institutional collapse, the rise of authoritarian or totalitarian governmentsunderstanding where these come from and how to inhibit them is a cornerstone of a fully developed account of social orders compatible with human liberty.

And we dont have to conceptually identify democracy or majoritarianism with liberty in order to think that, as a matter of fact, constitutional democratic governments are a crucial feature of free societies. It follows that we ought to care about how they work, and where they come from.

But the current classical liberal interpretation of political science is lacking.

All too often, classical liberal social theorists (who, in other domains, are well aware that social outcomes can be the product of human action without being the product of human design) treat political outcomes as being a matter of other peoples bad will and bad decisions. But political orders are complex emergent phenomena, as much as other orders in human society. Building a stable government that protects and facilitates individual liberty, involves more than a group of people with the correct beliefs about rights theory agreeing to do good things rather than bad things.

In other words, too many classical liberals who understand complexity in other social arenas become decisionists when they think about politics: all we need from governing institutions, they assert, is for people to make good decisions rather than bad ones.

They fall into this fallacy partly because they identify good government from a classical liberal perspective with mere inaction: all our rulers need to do is to stay their hand. Whatever the truth (and its a partial truth, as Hayek knew) of laissez faire as a description of good policy, it is no truth as an answer to the underlying organization of violence, coercion, and rule. A political order that can engage in and commit to the right kind of inaction, in the right ways and at the right times, is a rare accomplishment, and we still know too little about how to get it and how to keep it.

Over the course of these posts in coming weeks and months, I will identify some obstacles that have prevented the development of a classical liberal political science and political theory that can fit within the broad development of the humane studies. (Spoiler alert: Lockean social contract theory and public choice theory, while theyve both taught us valuable things, have become in important ways intellectual obstacles to overcome.) And Ill try to draw on what political scientists and theorists have learned, offering some thoughts about what needs to be incorporated within the developing liberal social theory of the humane studies.

Follow this link:
What Classical Liberals Get Wrong About Political Science - Learn Liberty (blog)

Amazing how a lawsuit can rattle the rust off an outdated institution.

A couple of weeks after Bellwether spotlighted the University of California at Berkeleys cancellation of a speech by conservative firebrand Ann Coulter, a student group has sued the university for inhibiting free speech on campus.

Good for the students!

Bellwether had argued that shutting down Coulter because of supposed security concerns amounted to viewpoint discrimination, which the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled is illegal. Thats the argument that the Berkeley College Republican club made in its lawsuit, filed in federal court this week.

And, after trying to ignore the issue for a few weeks, Berkeley has now been prodded into responding. The school says that Coulter is welcome on campus, but only during the first week of May, which, not so coincidentally, is a study week in preparation for final exams. Thats like inviting someone to your house, then locking all the doors and turning out the lights.

Significantly, the lawsuit also names Janet Napolitano, the president of the University of Californias extended college system. Remember her? She was President Obamas first secretary of Homeland Security and a previous governor of Arizona. Though she is now fighting cancer (and we wish her all the best in that challenge), Napolitano is ultimately responsible for defending free speech on the campuses she administers. Naming her personally sends a signal that real people, not just institutions, must be held to account when freedom is threatened.

Berkeleys lame defense exposes just how out of touch the school is. This isnt the 1960s, folks. And being conservative is not a crime, or a personality disorder. Its just a point of view that Berkeley, and other universities, try to keep in a dark closet, like dusty lawn furniture that never gets used.

Hey, Berkeley: What kind of world are you preparing your students to enter? In case you hadnt noticed, Donald Trump is president, Republicans control both houses of Congress, and Neal Gorsuch just donned the robes of a Supreme Court justice.

This isnt the first time Berkeley has tried to shut down free speech. Back in February, it refused to let conservative bomb thrower Milo Yiannopoulous deliver remarks on campus. The reason then was the same as with Coulter: people who dont agree with him threatened to disrupt the event. Some protesters carried signs that read, This is war. Really? Whats going on in Syria is war. In Berkeley, its more like whining.

John Moody is Executive Vice President, Executive Editor for Fox News. A former Rome bureau chief for Time magazine, he is the author of four books including "Pope John Paul II : Biography."

Read the original post:
Slow learners: UC Berkeley liberals get schooled on the law - Fox News

OTTAWA Help keep our borders safe, read a recent fundraising pitch from the federal Conservative party a plea the official Opposition is linking directly to the increased flow of asylum seekers crossing illegally into Canada.

Since January, nearly 1,900 people have been intercepted by the RCMP crossing into Canada. Asylum numbers in general are on the rise, projected to be at historic levels by years end.

The Conservatives lost the last federal election in part because of a perception they were too tough on the worlds most vulnerable; the Liberals won it with a pledge to open Canadas doors.

But the asylum seekers coming illegally into Canada have opened up a political can of worms and now both parties are rethinking their approach, each with a careful eye to how the politics of immigration played out in the U.S.

READ MORE:RCMP lay human smuggling charge after investigation into asylum seekers crossing border into Sask.

Since Justin Trudeau issued his open invitation on Twitter that Canadians will welcome you, our country has seen an influx of asylum seekers illegally crossing our border from a perfectly safe country the United States, the letter said.

It is during times like this that Canada needs strong, transparent leadership that will enforce our laws and keep Canadians safe, it continued. Help us set the course for victory in 2019.

In the Populism Project, The Canadian Press is exploring the factors behind Donald Trumps upset U.S. election win, testing them against Canadas current economic, social and political climate to gauge the possibility of a similar kind of political upheaval.

Trump seized on immigration policy as a sure vote-getter in his campaign, framing the status quo as a physical and economic threat to America.

We have no country if we have no border, he said during one debate, and his early executive orders pausing immigration from seven majority Muslim countries and a halt to refugee resettlement were direct follow-ups on campaign promises.

READ MORE:Man charged for assaulting CBSA officer after illegally crossing border into Manitoba: RCMP

Trudeaus #WelcometoCanada message, posted on Twitter in response to those orders, was a natural follow-through for Liberals.

In 2015 I made a conscious choice to try to draw people together, to work on allaying fears rather than highlighting them and exacerbating them, Trudeau said in an interview last week with Bloomberg.

I was up against a government that ran on snitch lines against Muslims, and headscarf bans and a fear-filled narrative that Canadians chose to reject for the large part because there was a positive, inclusive solutions-based alternative on offer.

Tory fundraising efforts suggest that fear-filled narrative is emerging anew.

Many Conservative leadership candidates are taking hard-line stances, promising to step up border enforcement and deportations or close legal loopholes that allow those crossing illegally to file for refugee status.

READ MORE:Manitoba RCMP warn refugees of dangerous trek across US/Canada border

Among them is Kellie Leitch. She visited the border town of Emerson, Man., over the weekend where hundreds of people have been coming across since January, and promised to deport the newcomers if elected prime minister.

Emerson is in a riding thats been Tory blue for more than 15 years, so theres not much political risk there for the Liberals if theyre seen as being soft on border controls.

Political wisdom in Canada also holds that Liberal messages of inclusion and diversity will win far more support with immigrants clustered in the riding-rich cities of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver than the tough Tory talk.

Then again, everyone expected Trumps promised Mexican border wall and depictions of Mexicans as bad hombres would surely cost him the entire Latino vote. Instead, national exit polls suggested he won about 30 per cent.

An online Ipsos poll for Reuters last month suggested nearly half of Canadians surveyed wanted action, and expressed dissatisfaction with how Trudeau is handling the file.

READ MORE:Goodale says RCMP, CBSA keeping a very active watch on refugees crossing border

If that turns into sustained political pressure, the fault could rest with the government, suggested Lori Wilkinson, director of Immigration Research West at the University of Manitoba.

The Liberals arent countering the misinformation being spread by their opponents as much as they should be, she said, nor doing enough to explain how well the current system is actually working.

It frustrates me that we dont talk about things more openly, but maybe informing people doesnt help the vote machine, she said.

Fear is more the driver here.

Some inside government say privately they agree with the Conservatives, and believe many border crossers are being pulled into Canada by Brand Trudeau, not pushed from the U.S. by Trump, as others have alleged.

But whats vexing Liberals is what kind of policy response they could take to both protect the border and their brand. Its not just a question of appeasing those on the right, but also holding onto the support they received from the left.

READ MORE:More refugees arrested after illegally crossing into Quebec

NDP leadership candidate Niki Ashton has pulled on populist threads on the border crosser question, positioning Trudeaus refusal to help asylum seekers cross legally into Canada as pushing marginalized people further onto the sidelines.

Theres room for a policy response, said Michael Donnelly, a political science professor at the University of Toronto who earlier this year helped publish a study on Canadian attitudes towards immigration.

VIDEO:Manitoba RCMP warn refugees of dangerous trek across US/Canada border

If they took a big policy response and they framed it in a welcoming-refugees and in a pro-integration sense the chunk of the public that is ever going to consider voting for them is going to give them a pass.

The Liberals do see another immigration-related political risk on the horizon how the 40,000 Syrian refugees theyve brought to the country will settle in.

The perception that Syrians are getting better access to jobs, education and housing than other immigrants or those born in Canada is a problem the government has already identified, including in their evaluation of the first wave of the Syrian refugee program.

READ MORE:No reports of refugees crossing into province outside of official border points: Sask. RCMP

Integration challenges were also a key theme in last years annual government survey on immigration, which came before the end of the first year in Canada for most Syrian refugees, during which they get financial help from Ottawa or their sponsors.

With lower education levels and facility with English than previous groups of refugees, as well as larger families and greater medical needs, there is concern the population will take longer to achieve success, fuelling more government criticism.

When Trudeau has spoken up in recent weeks about Canadas immigration policy, his answer has been shifting from a previous focus on the benefit of welcoming refugees to the importance of their outcomes.

That could be a pre-emptive strike, suggested Andrew Griffith, the former director of multiculturalism and citizenship for the federal government.

Good politicians tend to fine-tune their messaging as needed, Griffith said. This may be perceived as such.

Read the original post:
Illegal border crossings into Canada a hot topic for Conservatives and Liberals - Globalnews.ca

A new B.C. Liberal election attack ad claims when the NDP were in power, British Columbia suffered a 'decade of decline' and it warnsa New Democrat government formed by John Horgan will "take us back" to those times.

The ad allegesthat "when the rest of Canada was booming, the NDP took B.C. from first to worst in job creation, forcing 50,000 British Columbians to leave to find work," and that, "B.C. ranked dead last in investment and job growth."

The NDP reigned in B.C. from 1991 to 2000. The Liberals have been in power since 2001.

The Liberal ad cites Statistics Canada as the source of the information.

But are the claims completelytrue? Not according to two prominent B.C. economists, who analysed the assertions at the requestof our CBC Fact Check team.

"Sometimes, it's politics, in terms of how you shape the numbers," says Bryan Yu, deputy chief economist with the Central 1 Credit Union.

Jock Finlayson, executive director of the Business Council of B.C., agrees.

"Depending on the numbers you look at, they can certainly find some data that will help to embellish that or help support [their]argument," he says.

So, was the B.C. economy really that badunder the NDP in the 90's?

A check of the province's credit rating assessedby the Dominion bond rating service shows it hasbarely changed since 1991; from an "AA" rating until 1999, an "AA" minus rating through to 2004, then a bump to "AA" plus rating from 2007 to the present.

Stats Can figures, cited in the Liberal ad and checked by the CBC, show the first of the B.C. Liberal claims are partly correct that job growth slumped during a portion of the 90's when the NDP were in government and unemployment numbers climbed. Butthe rate of unemploymentwas also highunder the Liberals after they took power.

Unemployment peaked at 10.1% in 1992, the year after the NDP took power but dropped to 7.7% by the time the party was ousted from office in 2001.

Then, under the B.C. Liberals, unemployment climbed to 8.5% in 2002 shortly after the 9-11 crisis dropped in half a couple of years later but climbedto 7.7%in 2008 following the world economic downturn.

Our experts say internal B.C. policies have less impact on our economy, than outside forces.

B.C. Liberal Ad about NDP record in the 1990s says job creation declined. (B.C. Liberal Party )

"(Provincial policies) have some influence, but it's a lot less than people I think tend to believe," saidFinlayson.

"We had the Asian financial crisis in '97-'98, We had 9-11... and then of course we had the global financial crisis and crash in 2007all of these things had quite a big impact on B.C., and none of them have anything to do with the government of British Columbia, or any politicians in B.C."

Bryan Yu of Central 1 credit union concurs.

"I think it's difficult to say it's really reflective of the politics or policies in place at the time. It's largely a macro-economic driven event."

So what about the Liberal claim 50,000 British Columbians were forced to leave the province to find work under the NDP?

A Statistics Canada 2006 report shows there was an exodus but it extended during the early years of the Liberals as well, beginningwith "a net outflow in 1998, which continued until 2004" three years after the Liberal's took power.

B.C. Liberal party ad says thousands of job seekers left B.C. under the NDP because of bad economic policies but Stats Can figures show the exodus continued under the Liberals. (B.C. Liberal Party )

Most job seekers, the report notes, were attracted by the "surging economies" of Ontario and Alberta at thetime.

As for the Liberal claim under the NDP, the province was "dead last" in investment growth,Finlayson confirms B.C. was last among 10 provinces in the average annual growth of business investmentfrom 1991 to 2000.

B.C. Liberal party ad says the NDP was bad for investment and job growth. (B.C. Liberal Party )

But he warns that while the B.C. Liberal ad can claim the economic high ground right now because the province's economy is performing well, that might not continue.

"We do expect the economy to slow down here a bit in 2017-18," saidFinlayson.

"[But]an election is not the time to be careful," he said, referring to the claims made against the NDP in the B.C. Liberal ad.

"It's an age-old reality of political life."

See the original post:
Did the NDP really spark a 'decade of decline' as Liberals claim? - CBC.ca