• Mon - Fri 9.00 - 19.00
Open

Author Archives: Francisca Samuel

Tamara's World  /  Articles by: Francisca Samuel

Author: Francisca Samuel

Francisca Samuel is an editor at Tamara News, where she covers immigration, travel, business and technology news for readers across Africa and the Gulf.

01 Sep 2026
Canada temporary resident tracking

Canada Doesn’t Know Who’s Actually Leaving — A New Report Says Fix It

Categories Canada, Immigration

A council of immigration experts says Canada temporary resident tracking is broken, and Ottawa is flying blind on who actually leaves the country when a permit expires. The warning comes from the C.D. Howe Institute’s immigration targets council in a submission released August 30, 2026.

The Numbers Driving the Warning

Federal figures dated June 30, 2026 counted 632,000 people in Canada on study permits. Another 1.5 million held temporary work permits at the same point. Together, temporary residents remain a significant share of Canada’s population even after two years of federal cuts to intake targets.

Canada temporary resident tracking

Statistics Canada estimates temporary residents currently make up about 6.2 percent of the population, or roughly 2.5 million people. The federal government has set a target of bringing that share below 5 percent by the end of 2027.

Why Canada Temporary Resident Tracking Worries the Council

Council chair Parisa Mahboubi says the government’s target relies on an assumption rather than verified data. Ottawa largely assumes people leave once their permits expire, without a reliable system to confirm departures actually happen.

The council includes former immigration minister Jason Kenney alongside academics who study migration policy. Their submission argues that without better exit tracking, nobody, including the government, can say with confidence whether the 5 percent target is realistic or already being missed.

What the Council Wants Ottawa to Do

The submission calls for two changes. First, deeper cuts to temporary resident intake beyond what is already planned. Second, and more urgent according to Mahboubi, a functioning system to track when temporary residents actually exit the country rather than simply assuming compliance.

Canada already collects some exit data through information-sharing agreements with the United States at land borders, but coverage gaps remain, particularly for people who leave by air to destinations other than the US or who overstay without formally departing at all.

How Canada Currently Tracks Departures

Canada shares some border-crossing data with the United States. An information-sharing agreement covers land crossings between the two countries. That system can confirm when someone leaves Canada for the US, but it captures only one exit route among several.

People who fly to other countries fall outside what that data can confirm. So do people who simply remain in Canada after their permit expires without formally departing. The council’s submission argues this gap is large enough to undermine confidence in any national compliance estimate.

Provincial data adds another layer of uncertainty. Health cards, driver’s licenses, and school enrollment records could in theory help confirm whether someone is still in the country, but these systems are not currently linked to federal immigration status data in a systematic way.

Building those links raises its own privacy and jurisdictional questions, since provinces control much of that data independently of the federal government’s immigration mandate.

Mahboubi’s council did not set a timeline for when better tracking should be in place, but framed it as a prerequisite for any credible claim that Canada’s temporary resident population is actually shrinking toward the government’s target.

Opposition critics have echoed parts of the council’s concern. The political debate over intake levels themselves remains far more divided, though, than the narrower, more technical question of how departures get counted.

That narrower question, Mahboubi argues, is where Ottawa could make the fastest progress, since better tracking does not require the same political consensus that setting new intake numbers demands.

What Other Countries Do Differently

Several peer countries, including Australia and the UK, run more comprehensive exit-tracking systems that log departures at all major air, land, and sea points. Those systems let governments report overstay rates with more confidence than Canada currently can.

The C.D. Howe submission points to these systems as a model Canada could adapt, arguing that better data would let policymakers set intake targets based on verified outcomes rather than assumptions about who has already left.

Building a comparable system in Canada would likely require new agreements with airlines and closer coordination between IRCC, the Canada Border Services Agency, and provincial governments that currently hold pieces of the relevant data separately.

Where the Levels Debate Goes From Here

The council’s submission feeds into the government’s annual immigration levels consultation, which shapes targets for permanent and temporary admissions in the years ahead. Ottawa has not yet responded formally to the recommendations.

Study permit holders and temporary workers already navigating a tighter Canadian system, including recent caps on the Post-Graduation Work Permit’s eligible fields of study, are likely to face continued scrutiny as this debate over tracking and targets plays out over the coming months.

Frequently Asked Questions

How many temporary residents does Canada currently have?

Statistics Canada estimates about 2.5 million temporary residents, roughly 6.2 percent of the population, as of mid-2026.

What is Canada’s target for temporary residents?

The federal government aims to bring temporary residents below 5 percent of the population by the end of 2027.

Why does the C.D. Howe Institute say tracking is a problem?

The council argues Ottawa assumes people leave when their permits expire without a reliable system to confirm departures, making the 5 percent target hard to verify.

Who is on the C.D. Howe Institute’s immigration targets council?

The council is chaired by economist Parisa Mahboubi and includes former immigration minister Jason Kenney along with academics who study migration policy.

Related Coverage on Tamara News

Sources

01 Sep 2026
EU AI Act transparency

One Month Into the EU’s New AI Rules, Here’s Who’s Actually Complying

Categories Tech

The European Union’s AI rulebook has had a month to bite. EU AI Act transparency obligations took effect August 2. The European Commission’s AI Office and national regulators began enforcing rules that require AI systems to disclose their own involvement. Four areas are covered: direct interaction with people, AI-generated content, emotion recognition and biometric categorization, and deepfakes or AI-generated text on public-interest matters.

In practice, that means chatbots must tell users they are talking to a machine. Deepfakes need visible labels. AI-generated or altered content must carry machine-readable marks so platforms and researchers can detect it. Companies that don’t comply face fines up to €15 million or 3% of global annual turnover, whichever is larger. National market surveillance authorities, the European AI Office and the European Data Protection Supervisor enforce the penalty structure in parallel.

EU AI Act transparency

What EU AI Act transparency actually requires day to day

The rule’s four categories cover most consumer-facing AI use cases already in wide circulation. A customer-service chatbot on a European retail site now needs a clear disclosure at first contact. A marketing image generated or substantially altered by AI needs a machine-readable mark, not just a small watermark a user might miss. Emotion-recognition and biometric categorization systems, used in some retail and workplace settings, now require explicit disclosure to the people being monitored.

The AI Office has also published a voluntary Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-Generated Content. Several major AI providers have already signed on. That gives companies a template for compliance, rather than requiring each to interpret the regulation from scratch.

How this compares to the US approach to AI regulation

The EU’s transparency-first approach contrasts with Washington’s posture. The Commerce Department has signaled new rules are coming for AI chips and semiconductors, not for AI-generated content disclosure. That US regulatory track targets hardware supply chains. Brussels is regulating the output layer instead — what users see and interact with, rather than what powers it underneath.

China has taken a third approach. It recently fined AI companion apps for what regulators called inappropriately close engagement with users, a move covered in our reporting on Beijing’s AI companion crackdown. Three major regulatory blocs are now pursuing three distinct enforcement philosophies for the same underlying technology.

What happens next for companies still catching up

National regulators have signaled a phased enforcement approach. They are prioritizing the largest platforms and most visible violations first, rather than pursuing every noncompliant chatbot at once. Legal advisers tracking the rollout expect the first public fines to land in the coming months. Those are likely to target companies that ignored disclosure requirements entirely, rather than those that made good-faith but imperfect attempts at compliance.

Smaller companies building on top of major AI providers face a practical question. Does their chosen model provider’s compliance cover their own product, or do they need separate disclosure measures? Legal guidance from law firms including Cooley and Stibbe generally advises deployers not to assume upstream compliance protects them. The obligation applies at the point of user interaction, not just at the model level.

What compliance looks like for a small business

A small e-commerce site running an AI chatbot for customer support does not need a legal department to comply. It does need a few concrete changes. Those include a visible statement at the start of a chat session that the user is talking to an AI system, a process for labeling AI-generated product images or marketing copy, and a documented record of which disclosure measures are in place in case a regulator asks. Firms building on top of major providers’ APIs generally still carry this obligation themselves. The rule targets the point of interaction with the end user, not the underlying model.

Industry advisers say the most common compliance gap so far is not malicious evasion but simple oversight. Companies adopted AI tools for internal efficiency and only later realized customer-facing outputs also fall under the transparency rule. The Code of Practice published by the AI Office is designed to close that gap. It gives smaller companies language and formatting they can adopt directly, rather than drafting disclosure text from scratch.

Companies operating only outside the EU are not automatically exempt either. The rule applies based on where users are located, not where the company is headquartered. A US or Asia-based platform with European customers still needs to meet the same disclosure standard for the portion of its user base interacting from within the bloc. Legal teams at global platforms are treating that geographic split as a genuine engineering requirement, not just a policy footnote.

FAQ

When did the EU AI Act transparency rules take effect?

August 2, 2026.

What four areas do the rules cover?

Direct interaction with individuals, AI-generated content, emotion recognition and biometric categorization, and deepfakes or AI-generated public-interest content.

What are the penalties for noncompliance?

Fines up to €15 million or 3% of global annual turnover, whichever is greater.

Who enforces the transparency rules?

National market surveillance authorities, the European AI Office, and the European Data Protection Supervisor.

Is there a compliance template companies can follow?

Yes, the AI Office published a voluntary Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-Generated Content that several major providers have signed.

Does using a compliant AI model automatically make my product compliant?

Not necessarily. Legal advisers say the disclosure obligation applies at the point of user interaction, so deployers generally need their own compliance measures.

01 Sep 2026
Canada Hong Kong PR pathway

Canada’s Hong Kong ‘Lifeboat’ Just Closed Its Doors

Categories Canada, Immigration

Canada’s Hong Kong PR pathway stopped accepting new applications on August 31, 2026. The temporary program, known informally as the “lifeboat” scheme, gave eligible Hong Kong residents in Canada a faster route to permanent residence. It closed exactly as scheduled, with no extension announced.

What the Canada Hong Kong PR Pathway Covered

Ottawa introduced the pathway in 2021 through two streams. Stream A covered graduates of Canadian post-secondary institutions. Stream B covered people with recent Canadian work experience. Both required applicants to hold Hong Kong status and meet specific education or work criteria tied to their time in Canada.

Canada Hong Kong PR pathway

The policy responded to Hong Kong’s 2020 national security law, which Canada and several other governments said had eroded the territory’s autonomy and civil freedoms. It offered a dedicated, faster track separate from Express Entry and other economic immigration streams.

The Numbers Behind the Program

As of June 30, 2026, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada had received roughly 30,315 applications under the policy. Counting family members, that figure covers about 48,560 people. IRCC had already approved more than 8,600 of those applications, covering about 13,485 people.

Those figures show a program that processed a meaningful but modest share of Hong Kong’s diaspora in Canada relative to the number of people who left the territory since 2020.

Application volume climbed steadily through 2024 and 2025 as word spread among Hong Kong communities in Toronto and Vancouver, the two cities where most applicants under both streams had settled before filing.

What Happens to Applications Already Filed

IRCC will continue processing every application submitted on or before August 31, 2026. Applicants who filed before the deadline do not need to take any new action because of the closure; their cases proceed under the rules that applied when they applied.

Anyone who missed the deadline no longer has access to Stream A or Stream B specifically. Other permanent residence routes, including Express Entry and provincial nominee programs, remain open to Hong Kong applicants who qualify under their general criteria.

Why Ottawa Let the Program Expire

Canada framed the pathway as temporary from the start, tied to conditions in Hong Kong after 2020 rather than a permanent immigration category. Officials gave applicants years of advance notice about the August 31 end date, unlike some policy changes that land with little warning.

The closure also fits a broader pattern this year. Canada has trimmed several temporary and special-status immigration streams as it works toward lower overall admission targets, a shift that has touched programs well beyond the Hong Kong pathway.

Advocacy groups representing Hong Kong Canadians had pushed for an extension in the months before the deadline, citing ongoing political conditions in the territory. IRCC did not change course, and the program closed on schedule.

What Happens If You Missed the Deadline

Former Hong Kong pathway hopefuls now compete through Canada’s general economic immigration system rather than a dedicated track. That means meeting Express Entry’s points thresholds or qualifying under a provincial nominee stream, both of which carry different requirements than the closed Hong Kong-specific program.

Immigration consultants recommend reviewing eligibility for Express Entry’s existing categories. Work experience and education gained in Canada under the former Hong Kong pathway criteria can often still count toward points in the general system.

British Columbia and Ontario, the two provinces where most Hong Kong applicants settled, also run provincial nominee streams that sometimes favor candidates with existing local work history, a detail worth checking against each province’s current criteria.

Applicants weighing their remaining options should confirm current eligibility directly with IRCC or a licensed immigration consultant, since program criteria can shift between the levels-plan updates that Ottawa issues each year.

The closure leaves a gap in Canada’s immigration offerings for a community that leaned on this pathway heavily since 2021, and no government official has signaled a replacement program is under consideration.

Community organizations that supported applicants through Stream A and Stream B say they will keep offering guidance on general immigration routes, even without a dedicated Hong Kong-specific program to point clients toward going forward.

Anyone unsure whether their application counts as filed before the August 31 cutoff should contact IRCC directly. A confirmation receipt showing the submission timestamp is the clearest evidence a case still qualifies under the old rules.

Keep that receipt on file for the full length of processing. IRCC may request proof of the original filing date if a case takes an unusually long time to resolve.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I still apply for Canada’s Hong Kong PR pathway?

No. Both Stream A and Stream B stopped accepting new applications on August 31, 2026, and there is no announced extension.

What happens to my application if I applied before August 31, 2026?

IRCC continues processing applications submitted on or before the deadline under the rules in place when they were filed.

How many people used the Hong Kong pathway before it closed?

IRCC had received about 30,315 applications, covering roughly 48,560 people, as of June 30, 2026, with more than 8,600 applications already approved.

What immigration options remain for Hong Kong residents in Canada?

General routes including Express Entry and provincial nominee programs remain open to applicants who meet their standard eligibility criteria.

Related Coverage on Tamara News

Sources

01 Sep 2026
Federal Reserve rate outlook

Wall Street Just Repriced the Fed’s Next Move — Here’s What Changed

Categories Business

Markets adjusted their bets on the Federal Reserve within a single trading session. The Federal Reserve rate outlook turned more hawkish late last week. Fed Chair Kevin Warsh said inflation “remains uncomfortably high” for policymakers. Traders read the remarks as a signal the central bank is in no hurry to cut rates. US equities closed lower Friday after opening with modest gains, reversing course as the comments spread through trading desks, per CNBC’s market coverage that day.

The bond market moved faster than stocks. The 2-year Treasury yield rose 0.12 percentage points to 4.35%. The 10-year climbed to 4.72%. Both moves are consistent with traders pricing in a longer stretch of elevated rates than they expected earlier in August.

Federal Reserve rate outlook

Why the Federal Reserve rate outlook shifted so quickly

The Fed left its policy rate unchanged at 3.50%-3.75% for a fifth consecutive meeting in July. That was broadly in line with expectations, even though three FOMC members dissented in favor of a 25-basis-point hike. That dissent already signaled internal disagreement about how much further tightening might be needed. Warsh’s comments added weight to the hawkish camp’s argument, days before markets head into the Fed’s next scheduled decision.

Energy prices are complicating the picture further. Oil price pressure tied to the ongoing Iran situation has strained the Trump administration’s inflation-fighting efforts. San Francisco Fed research published this week found that rising gas-price expectations pull broader inflation expectations up with them. The effect is strongest among lower-income households already squeezed by higher costs, a pattern also visible in recent retail earnings showing consumer strain.

How this compares to the ECB’s own rate dilemma

The Fed is not alone in facing an inflation-versus-growth tradeoff shaped by Middle East energy risk. The European Central Bank faces a similar bind. Traders anticipate a possible September hike after President Christine Lagarde warned, per CNBC’s reporting on her remarks, that renewed Middle East hostilities and rebounding oil prices pose upside risk to eurozone inflation, a dynamic detailed in our coverage of the ECB’s own September decision. Central banks on both sides of the Atlantic are effectively responding to the same geopolitical shock.

The Bank of England holds its own Monetary Policy Committee meeting September 17. Its last vote split six-to-three in favor of no change. That is a similar pattern of growing dissent toward tighter policy showing up across major central banks at once.

What happens next for rate-sensitive markets

Investors will parse every subsequent Fed official’s remarks for confirmation or pushback on Warsh’s hawkish framing before the next policy meeting. Equity strategists have flagged potential for near-term consolidation after a strong 2026 run. Higher short-term Treasury yields typically pressure growth stocks and rate-sensitive sectors like housing and small-cap equities first. Traders are also watching wage and employment data due before the meeting, which could reinforce or undercut the case for holding rates steady.

How traders are positioning ahead of the next meeting

Options markets showed a notable shift in positioning right after Warsh’s comments. Traders pared back bets on a near-term rate cut. They added exposure to scenarios where the Fed holds steady well into 2027. That repricing matters beyond bond desks. Mortgage rates, corporate borrowing costs and the dollar’s exchange rate all take cues from where the market expects the Fed’s rate to sit over the coming year, not just where it sits today.

Equity strategists draw a distinction between sectors likely to weather a higher-for-longer rate environment and those more exposed to it. Financials tend to benefit from a steeper yield curve and have held up better than growth-oriented technology names since Warsh’s remarks. That rotation is consistent with prior periods when markets recalibrated toward a more hawkish Fed stance mid-cycle.

The dollar has also firmed modestly against a basket of major currencies since the remarks. That fits a market that now expects US rates to stay elevated for longer than other major central banks’ rates. A stronger dollar cuts both ways for the US economy. It helps tame imported inflation at a moment when energy prices are already a concern. But it also makes American exports more expensive, at a time when trade tensions with Canada are already weighing on manufacturers. Currency strategists say the dollar’s path from here will hinge less on any single official’s remarks. It will hinge more on whether upcoming inflation and employment reports confirm or challenge the hawkish read markets have adopted since Warsh spoke. Those reports are due before the Fed’s next scheduled meeting. Any surprise in either direction could move Treasury yields again before policymakers even vote.

FAQ

What did the Fed Chair say that moved markets?

Kevin Warsh said inflation “remains uncomfortably high” for policymakers, which markets interpreted as a hawkish signal.

Where does the Fed’s policy rate currently stand?

3.50%-3.75%, unchanged for a fifth consecutive meeting as of July 2026.

How did Treasury yields react?

The 2-year yield rose to 4.35% and the 10-year rose to 4.72%.

Why did three FOMC members dissent in July?

They preferred a 25-basis-point rate hike rather than holding steady.

How are energy prices affecting the inflation outlook?

Oil price pressure linked to the Iran situation is pushing gas-price expectations higher, which research shows lifts broader inflation expectations, especially for lower-income households.

Are other central banks facing the same dilemma?

Yes. The ECB and Bank of England are both weighing similar inflation risks tied to Middle East energy prices ahead of their own September meetings.

01 Sep 2026
Schengen border checks extended

8 Schengen Countries Are Still Checking IDs at the Border

Categories EU, Immigration

Eight Schengen countries are still checking IDs at borders that are supposed to be open. Schengen border checks extended through September, and in some cases through December 2026, cover Austria, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, and Sweden, according to notifications filed with the European Commission.

Which Countries Have Schengen Border Checks Extended

Germany has prolonged checks at all nine of its land borders until September 15, 2026. The Netherlands extended its controls until September 30, with officials signaling this round is not expected to continue further in its current form.

Schengen border checks extended

France, Austria, Italy, Norway, Poland, and Sweden have each filed separate extensions running into the final months of 2026, citing a mix of security concerns and migration pressure at their respective frontiers.

Why Countries Keep Renewing These Checks

The Schengen Borders Code allows a member state to temporarily reinstate internal checks when it identifies a serious threat to public policy or internal security. Extensions require formal notification to Brussels and are meant to be short-term and proportionate.

In practice, several countries have renewed their checks repeatedly since 2023, citing ongoing irregular migration flows and, in some cases, upcoming major international events that raise security concerns. Critics argue the “temporary” checks have become close to permanent at some borders.

What This Means If You’re Crossing These Borders

A border check does not mean a closed border. Officials conduct spot checks on documents rather than systematic searches of every vehicle or traveler. Most crossings remain quick, though delays can build during peak travel periods or at high-volume road crossings.

Travelers with valid Schengen visas, passports, or residence permits should not expect to be refused entry. Carrying physical identity documents, rather than relying only on digital copies, remains the safest approach at any border currently under a reinstated check.

The Rules Behind a Temporary Border Check

Under Schengen rules, a member state notifies the European Commission before reinstating checks and must justify the threat driving the decision. Extensions typically run in six-month blocks, and the state must renew its notification each time it wants to keep the checks running.

The Commission reviews each notification but has limited power to force a country to end checks early. That gap in enforcement is part of why some countries have kept renewing checks for years rather than months, even though the rules describe the measure as exceptional and short-term.

How This Debate Keeps Resurfacing

Migration pressure and security concerns tied to major events remain the most common justifications countries cite. Germany’s land-border checks, for example, trace back to concerns about irregular crossings and have been renewed repeatedly rather than allowed to lapse.

Free-movement advocates argue the pattern undermines one of the EU’s core achievements, an open internal border. Governments defending the checks counter that spot verification is a proportionate tool while migration and security pressures remain elevated, not a rollback of Schengen itself.

The European Parliament has debated tightening the rules that govern how long a country can keep checks in place. So far, member states retain wide discretion to renew their own notifications, and no binding time limit has passed into EU law.

What Travelers Should Expect at the Border

Expect occasional document checks at land crossings in the eight countries listed above through at least September, longer in several cases. Air travelers face fewer disruptions, since these checks concentrate on land and, in some cases, key rail and sea routes.

The European Commission continues to press for a return to fully open internal borders, but has not blocked any of the current extensions. Anyone planning overland travel across these borders this autumn should build in extra time at major crossing points.

Keep a passport or national ID card accessible rather than packed away, even on routes that rarely see enforcement. Officers can request documents at any point during an active check, and delays are shorter for travelers who can produce them immediately.

Business travelers with recurring cross-border trips should factor in a buffer of 20 to 30 minutes at land crossings during peak hours, according to guidance several national border agencies have published alongside their extension notices.

Cross-border commuters and cargo drivers, who rely on predictable crossing times, have raised the loudest complaints, since repeated extensions make it harder to plan routes months in advance around any specific end date.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which Schengen countries currently have border checks in place?

Austria, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, and Sweden have all filed extensions of internal border checks running through September or later in 2026.

Do I need a visa to cross a Schengen internal border with checks?

No new visa requirement applies. Existing Schengen visa, passport, or residence permit rules still govern entry; the checks are spot document verifications, not a new border regime.

Will these Schengen border checks become permanent?

They remain formally temporary under EU rules, though several countries have renewed them repeatedly since 2023, and the European Commission has not forced any country to end its checks early.

Do these checks affect flights within Europe?

Rarely. The reinstated checks concentrate on land borders and, in some countries, key rail and sea crossings, with limited impact on domestic and intra-Schengen flights.

Related Coverage on Tamara News

Sources

1 … 76 77 78 79 80 … 230