Rising Nationalism and U.S. Pressure: What’s Driving Canada’s Immigration Policy Shift?
- CIVILIAN Magazine
- Jun 9
- 8 min read
Updated: Sep 27
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 spending money as they settled into their new lives rather than improvements in the domestic workforce. Further instigating public unrest were reports highlighting that Canada's wealthiest households saw significant financial gains during the pandemic, thanks in part to asset appreciation and government stimulus measures that buoyed markets. Meanwhile, low- and middle-income Canadians—especially frontline workers, immigrants, and racialized communities—faced job loss, housing instability, and growing debt. As economic inequality deepened, some public frustration was redirected toward immigrants and temporary foreign workers, despite evidence showing they were often amongst the most economically vulnerable during this time. In this way, anti-immigration rhetoric served as a convenient scapegoat, masking the deeper structural issues around wealth concentration, housing affordability, and labour protections. 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 signalling 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 cases where individuals have provided false or misleading information during the refugee claim—for example, by misrepresenting their identity or reasons for fleeing. Authorities also point to situations where serious crimes have been committed after obtaining refugee status, or where an individual is deemed a danger to national security or public safety. Additionally, revocation may be justified when someone no longer qualifies as a refugee due to changed conditions in their home country, or when fraud or misrepresentation has occurred 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. They point out that the Minister can revoke status without clear guidelines or independent review, potentially leading to arbitrary or unfair decisions. Refugees may also face restricted or no access to appeals or judicial review, undermining due process. Without thorough review mechanisms, even innocent errors or misunderstandings could result in unjust deportations, placing lives at risk. Moreover, individuals who have built lives in Canada may lose their status unexpectedly, creating insecurity and hardship. Critics further warn that concentrating revocation authority in one official risks decisions being influenced by political motives rather than fairness or adherence to the law.
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.
