What Halifax voters want to hear at next leaders debate
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Calgary Herald
11 hours ago
- Calgary Herald
Opinion: Alberta once welcomed immigrants now under microscope by government's panel
Article content It's been several weeks since Stampede ended, and Calgary's Ismaili community held its annual Stampede breakfast. As always, the event attracts several thousand attendees and stands as a microcosm of what defines Calgary today, and who has helped to shape it. Article content There is no mistaking the immigrant impact on this city and province. Article content Article content In attendance at the breakfast, there are always representatives of current and past generations – many sporting myriad versions of the ubiquitous Smithbilt hat rooted in the immigrant story of the Schumiatcher family, who came to Calgary in 1910 and created the iconic white hat in 1946. Article content Article content From teachers to entrepreneurs, business, arts and community leaders – we are a richer community because of all who have chosen to make Alberta home. And that includes my parents. Article content Article content Which is why the Alberta Next panel – which kicked off just after Stampede Week and is seeking feedback from Albertans on the province's place in Confederation through the summer – is troubling for me. More specifically, it's the question focused on immigrants – targeting those who don't meet certain criteria and could be denied access to social services supports if they come to Alberta. Article content I was in Poland when the panel was announced. It's where my parents were born and raised before the Second World War – and it was my first visit to the country, which had the largest Jewish population in Europe until war broke out. Article content I am a first-generation Canadian. My parents came to Canada, and to Alberta, in 1951. They survived the horrors of the Second World War, with my dad Moshe losing his entire family and my mother Tova and her parents being the only surviving members of her immediate family. My brother and I grew up in the shadow of loss, which hung over our house every day. Article content Article content Canada was a place of refuge, where my parents could rebuild their lives, and Edmonton was where they settled. Article content You see, the war interrupted my mother's education. When she left Poland, she had a high school diploma. And no English skills. She spoke many other languages, but not English. My dad had a Master's degree in history, but lacked a teaching certificate or other qualifications. He also didn't speak English. Article content Odds are, they wouldn't have qualified for social services support under the current construct of the question being put before Albertans and the panel. Article content Yet, as so many immigrants do, they figured it out. My dad did become a teacher, and my mother went back to school. She graduated with a PhD in history from the University of Alberta in 1968 and retired as professor emerita in 1996.
Winnipeg Free Press
18 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a 'mountain of evidence' that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many who have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, 'I was born here in the states, East LA bro!' They want to 'send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen … can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood,' American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. 'Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion,' Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. 'No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all,' Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a 'broad profile' and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors 'cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status.' She also asked: 'What is the harm to being told not to do something that you claim you're already not doing?'
CBC
a day ago
- CBC
N.S. dairy farmer reacts to Trump's criticisms
Washington is focusing on is Canada's dairy industry. U.S. President Donald Trump says the current deal is unfair to his country's producers. Brett Ruskin spoke to a dairy farmer in Nova Scotia to get his take.
