Rising Nationalism and U.S. Pressure: What’s Driving Canada’s Immigration Policy Shift?

Canada has long been celebrated as a country that welcomes people from all walks of life. Its immigration policies have not only been rooted in a commitment to humanitarian values but have also played a key role in shaping the country’s economy. Yet, in recent years, a more vocal strain of anti-immigration rhetoric has started to gain traction, presenting challenges to Canada’s long-standing image as a global leader in refugee resettlement and immigrant integration.

On the surface, the economic rationale for immigration remains clear. According to Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), immigration is "essential to Canada’s economic growth," with immigrants bringing a diverse set of skills, work experience, and education. Canada’s aging population and declining birth rates have led to a heavy reliance on immigration to fill labour shortages in key sectors, including healthcare, agriculture, and skilled trades.

During the COVID-19 pandemic recovery, however, Canada’s Temporary Foreign Worker Program became a source of tension. Employers, seeking to maintain low labour costs, increasingly hired foreign workers, which many Canadians viewed as depressing wages and limiting job opportunities for unemployed citizens. The government touted rising GDP numbers as evidence of Canada’s economic rebound, but critics pointed out that these figures were largely driven by the influx of temporary foreign workers rather than improvements in the domestic workforce. Public outrage over these dynamics led the government to reduce the number of temporary foreign workers allowed, marking an early turning point in immigration policy that foreshadowed more restrictive measures.

In response to these concerns, the government began signaling a more targeted and responsive immigration approach. In a Nov. 2024 interview, IRCC told CIVILIAN Magazine that "consultation" with provinces and territories is essential to developing a nuanced immigration system. At that time, there was a concerted effort to make immigration responsive to labor market needs, signalling a shift towards prioritizing specific industries.

"Supporting the Canadian economy continues to be a key priority of the 2025–2027 Levels Plan, as the economic class represents the largest proportion of admissions each year, reaching nearly 62% by 2027," explained Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), in a statement attributed to former Minister Marc Miller’s office.

This focus on economic priorities was paired with a commitment to balanced immigration policies that included not only skilled workers but also refugees. However, even as the rhetoric stayed grounded in Canada’s economic and humanitarian values, the government stressed the importance of adapting immigration processes to align with the current labour market realities. This strategy aimed at ensuring immigrants contributed positively to the Canadian economy, particularly in sectors where there was a clear and urgent need.

Growing Tensions and the Emergence of Anti-Immigration Sentiment

Despite IRCC’s focus on integrating economic and humanitarian aspects into Canada’s immigration policy, a shift was occurring. Voices in the public and political discourse were growing louder, calling for a more restrictive immigration policy. These critics argued that Canada should prioritize addressing specific labour shortages in sectors like healthcare, agriculture, and skilled trades, and scale back on refugee intake. Their concerns centered on what they perceived as an overstretched public service system, particularly in areas like housing and healthcare, which they argued were being strained by rising immigration numbers.

While critics of immigration, particularly those aligned with the "Canada First" movement, often face accusations of xenophobia, there are genuine concerns that many Canadians feel about the country's rapid demographic shifts. For some, the increasing influx of immigrants represents a challenge to communities where economic pressures are already felt. These individuals argue that immigration should be scaled back, not out of hostility toward newcomers but out of a desire to ensure that public services, like healthcare and housing, aren't overburdened.

Some critics also point to growing housing prices, job competition, and the rising costs of living, viewing immigration as a contributing factor to these issues—ignoring the failed housing policies of their Provincial governments. From their perspective, the focus should shift toward ensuring that the existing population—many of whom are already struggling—can access the benefits that immigrants are also seeking.

This discourse gained significant traction with the growing presence of populist and right-wing rhetoric, which painted immigration as an economic burden and a threat to social cohesion. Critics of the current immigration system, some of whom aligned with the Canada-first movement led by former Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre, argued that Canada's commitment to diversity was undermining its national unity and economic well-being.

The Strong Borders Act: A Turning Point

Just months after IRCC’s conversation with CIVILIAN Magazine, the rhetoric around immigration took a sharp turn. On the heels of mounting pressure from anti-immigration factions, the Canadian government unveiled the Strong Borders Act (Bill C-2)—a controversial piece of legislation that marks a stark departure from the more open stance championed by IRCC. The Act places a strong emphasis on national security, enhanced border controls, and greater surveillance, drawing criticism from domestic observers.

The bill proposes a number of measures, including enhanced surveillance, reduced access to asylum, and intelligence-sharing initiatives between Canada and the U.S. This legislation is widely seen as a reactive measure aiming to address a recent rise in asylum claims, many linked to temporary foreign workers overstaying their visas and applying for asylum—a phenomenon critics say is an unintended consequence of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program’s loopholes. By restricting asylum claims for individuals who have been in Canada for over a year, the Act seeks to curb what is seen as abuse of the system.

Supporters of Bill C-2 argue that these measures are necessary to safeguard Canada’s national security, ensure the integrity of the immigration system, and respond to public concerns about uncontrolled migration and border management. Proponents claim that stronger border controls can help manage immigration flows more effectively and protect the country from potential threats, while also maintaining public confidence in the system. From this perspective, the bill represents a pragmatic response to evolving challenges rather than a departure from Canada’s values.

But Bill C-2 also includes controversial provisions such as increased border patrols, warrantless inspections of mail, IP address tracking, and retroactive limits on asylum eligibility—measures that have sparked backlash from civil liberties advocates. They argue that the bill prioritizes state power over privacy and humanitarian obligations, warning of a potential erosion of rights for both citizens and newcomers. Organizations such as the Canadian Council for Refugees and the Migrant Rights Network have publicly condemned the bill, the latter warning that it would drastically restrict refugee protections.

One of the most troubling elements of the Act is that immigration authorities can detain individuals for up to a year without a warrant or the ability to challenge their detention in court. This is highly problematic in Canada, where the law and Constitution usually protect people from unfair imprisonment. Normally, the government must have a strong legal reason to detain someone and the detainee has the right to ask a judge to review whether the detention is justified. Many legal experts call this new rule “patently unconstitutional,” noting that the Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly ruled that prolonged, warrantless detention without review violates fundamental rights.

Furthermore, the bill grants the Minister of Immigration sweeping power to revoke a person’s refugee status at any time—even years after it has been granted and before the individual becomes a Canadian citizen. Since refugee status generally confers permanent resident status, revoking refugee status means losing permanent residency, which can lead to deportation—even for people who have lived in Canada for many years.

This power raises serious concerns. Critics argue that it grants the Minister too much unchecked authority without clear rules or legal protections for those affected. Without an independent review, refugees risk losing their status unfairly, sometimes over minor or disputed issues.

Government’s Rationale for Revocation

The government defends the revocation provisions by citing valid concerns, including:

• Providing false or misleading information during the refugee claim (e.g., misrepresenting identity or reasons for fleeing).

• Commission of serious crimes after obtaining refugee status.

• Being deemed a danger to national security or public safety.

• No longer qualifying as a refugee due to changed conditions in the home country.

• Fraud or misrepresentation during the application process.

These measures are intended to safeguard Canada’s security and the integrity of the immigration system.

Critics’ Concerns

However, critics argue that the bill grants the Minister excessively broad powers with minimal oversight or opportunity for affected individuals to challenge revocation decisions. Their concerns include:

• The Minister can revoke status without clear guidelines or independent review, potentially leading to arbitrary or unfair decisions.

• Refugees may have restricted or no access to appeals or judicial review, undermining due process.

• Without thorough review, innocent errors or misunderstandings could result in unjust deportations, placing lives at risk.

• Individuals who have built lives in Canada may lose status unexpectedly, creating insecurity and hardship.

• Concentrating revocation authority in one official risks decisions influenced by political motives rather than fairness or law.

To illustrate the potential human impact of these changes, consider the story of an immigrant...let's call him Luis. He fled brutal violence in his home country five years ago and was granted refugee status in Canada. Luis worked hard, learned English, and raised his daughters in safety. Suddenly, under the new law, the Minister revoked his status due to a minor error in his original asylum application—an error he had explained during his initial hearing. Luis faces deportation to a country where his life is at risk. His daughters, who only know Canada as home, may lose their safety and future. With limited legal recourse or ability to appeal, Luis feels trapped in a system that treats him as a case number rather than a human being.

The Social Impact of Immigration: Beyond the Numbers

As of June 3, 2025, the Strong Borders Act has been introduced in the House of Commons but remains in its early legislative stages. It has yet to be debated or passed into law. With public opposition mounting and the bill’s implications far-reaching, its future remains uncertain. Notably, some observers suggest that this show of force on national security may be more about foreign optics than domestic necessity—specifically, a strategic move by Prime Minister Mark Carney to curry favour with former U.S. President Donald Trump, as the two continue tense and high-stakes trade negotiations.

By the time Bill C-2 comes to a vote in Parliament, the political landscape may have shifted. Ironically, while the bill appeals to conservative sentiments around border control, many Conservatives may oppose its expansive surveillance provisions on civil liberties grounds. Meanwhile, negotiations with Trump could evolve, rendering the political calculus behind the bill obsolete.

Still, as Canada faces defining questions about identity, justice, and security, it is essential that we stay vigilant. The most practical and democratic path forward is civic literacy, and informed pressure. Because only then can our political representatives feel the public pressure to ensure better policy outcomes.

Amid these political shifts, it’s essential to remember the broader social impact of immigration. While economic contributions remain vital, the humanitarian aspect of Canada’s immigration policies has shaped its identity as a multicultural society. Despite concerns about the strain on public services, the majority of immigrants, including refugees, contribute positively to Canadian society in ways that extend far beyond immediate financial concerns.

As IRCC once pointed out, “Immigration is essential to Canada’s economic growth,” but it is equally essential to the continued success of Canada as a place that offers opportunity and sanctuary to those in need. Balancing these competing concerns—economic growth, humanitarian support, and social cohesion—will require nuanced policies that reflect both the nation’s history and its future aspirations. As tensions rise, the challenge for policymakers will be to navigate this shifting terrain carefully, ensuring that immigration remains a tool for economic growth, cultural diversity, and humanitarian support—rather than becoming a symbolic gesture of toughness, more aimed at appeasing international actors like Donald Trump than addressing Canada’s real needs.

While some populist voices argue that Canada's immigration system is overstretched and that national identity could be compromised, others counter that the nation’s economic prosperity and humanitarian principles are intertwined with its openness to the world. The rise of right-wing populism reflects broader global trends where concerns about economic instability, cultural shifts, and national security are being channeled into a more restrictive immigration framework. The legislative fate of the Strong Borders Act may ultimately test Canada’s ability to reconcile its competing values—security and openness, economic pragmatism and humanitarian tradition. 

INFORMATION IS POWER.

Sign up to be notified about our next release.