OIL and water, being poles apart, may not mix, but politics, oil and migration do.
Oil and water temporarily bond when shaken. Eventually, oil pushes itself away, settling on top.
Polarity is what migration policies represent. At any given time, welcoming immigrants may be a country’s priority to pursue an economic or political goal. When affordability and cost of living become the primordial concern of the voting populace, politicians take a hydrophobic stance — usually adopting a 180-degree populist solution.
A short trip down memory lane should help illustrate the turn.
From 2022 until the recently concluded federal election, the Australian Labor Party has governed Australia. Prime ministership changed from Scott Morrison (of the Liberal-National Coalition) to Anthony Albanese‘s Labor Party in 2025.
Get the latest news
delivered to your inbox
Sign up for The Manila Times newsletters
By signing up with an email address, I acknowledge that I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
New Zealand’s Labour Party (NZLP), on the other hand, experienced a roller coaster ride.
After being underwater in NZ politics for nine years, NZLP found a savior in Jacinta Ardern, who, at age 37 — with her charismatic optimism — became the country’s youngest prime minister in more than 150 years.
“Jacindamania” failed to meet its campaign promise of “free university education, reductions in immigration, decriminalization of abortion, and the creation of new programs to alleviate poverty among children,” thus resurrecting the Conservative Party.
With former businessman Christopher Luxon as prime minister, the Conservative Party now claims New Zealand is “back on track.”
Closer to the North Pole, the Liberal Party of Canada remained in power from 2019 to 2025 — a period that marked a surge in immigration under the successive governments of Ministers Justin Trudeau and Mark Carney.
On Feb. 9, 2022, Canada’s 2021 census shows that 8,361,505 immigrants represent 23 percent of the country’s population. That same year, Canada welcomed over 437,000 permanent residents (PRs) — the largest in Canadian history. Temporary immigration numbers were also not far behind, with 550,187 study permits and 604,382 work permits issued.
The red mat of welcoming immigrants continued for the next three years, with a target of 500,000 permanent residents for 2025.
Then, Trump’s anti-immigrant tsunami hit Ottawa, turning the tide, resulting in a reduced yearly PR admission target of only 370,000 by 2027.
Faced with separatist revolts from Quebec and Alberta, the federal government under Carney offered an olive branch, prioritizing French-speakers for permanent residency under the category-based programs of Express Entry.
The Alberta Secession movement, on the other hand, was stopped on its tracks by a Court of King’s Bench decision citing a lack of consultation with the First Nations before collecting signatures for the proposed referendum.
In the UK, Brexit — an “immigration-invasion-driven referendum” to separate from the European Union — happened under three successive Conservative Party governments under Prime Ministers David Cameron (who initiated the referendum), Theresa May, who exercised the formal Brexit option, followed by the formal withdrawal during Boris Johnson’s term.
UK’s House of Commons reported a 69 percent decrease with 898,000 arrivals vs. 693,000 leaving — a sharp decline from the record peak of 944,000 in the year ending March 2023.
Immigration numbers decline
The anticipated changes from a perceived immigration-friendly political party goes on top do not translate into immigrant-friendly policies, as the UK experience illustrates.
In Australia, an immigration moratorium was declared by the center-left Labor Party of Australia and Canada’s Liberal Party, with the Covid-19 pandemic effect as a backdrop. Anthony Albanese’s Labor government left its three-year permanent migration numbers unchanged at 185,000 annually: 132,000 skilled classes, 52,460 family subclasses until 2027.
On temporary immigration, however, certain temporary visa holders face uncertainty of admission under the newly enacted Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Act 2026, which gives the government new authority to temporarily restrict the arrival of certain classes of temporary visa holders during periods of elevated migration‑related risk.
International students will be admitted only if the sponsoring educational institution has sufficient on-campus housing capacity — and the visa application fees have increased from $710 before July 2024 to $2,000 from July 2025. An international student may pursue the next level — graduate visa — but only if under 35 years old, enrolled in an eligible degree in a Cricos-registered course, pay the $4,600 visa fee, and stay for a maximum of 3 years.
Immigration-slimming diet conundrum
In October 2024, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Immigration Canada (IRCC) announced a reduction in its permanent resident targets from 500,000 to 370,000 in 2027.
Temporary residency numbers (TPNs) were also targeted to be less than 5 percent of Canada’s overall population by the end of the same year.
Despite this migration-slimming method, the total number of TPNs in Canada still increased by about 2 percent, mostly because many were extending their work and study permits — instead of leaving.
As of Aug. 31, 2025, there were roughly 1,489,645 work permit holders only in Canada, compared to 1,460,115 at the end of 2024.
Ultimately, the success of a migration program relies on the “backing of the Australian people.” When a majority or noisy minority makes a case for keeping foreigners out, the result is restrictive immigration.
Until the first year of the second Trump administration, the governments of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK were wary — but not migrant-phobic.
Buoyed into office by the MAGA and rightist groups, US President Donald Trump fired a series of executive orders banning immigrants from certain countries from coming to the US, pursuing aggressive and expansive deportation proceedings of immigrants from basically the same countries who were in the US — including those lawfully admitted under the Obama and Biden administrations such as the DACA-dreamers and those allowed to enter under temporary legal protection after fleeing natural and man-made disasters.
Then fuel was added to the migration fire when the Trump administration bombed Iran.
Post-war migration scenario: If there’s a will, there’s a way
Faced by unfavorable economic conditions, businesses and potential sponsors will hold off on hiring. The damage to energy infrastructure in Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Iran will take years to repair and return to pre-bombing levels. Disruptions feed directly into higher global prices and increased operational costs. Recruitment of foreign workers will bear the brunt.
Repatriated OFWs will brave dangers in the Gulf nations for a lack of employment opportunities back home.
International education in the Five DestiNations will suffer from selective admissions; foreign students will continue to explore study options in other countries, i.e., Europe and Asia.
Permanent immigration will slow to a trickle as those already in the country — as international students, graduate students, temporary workers, refugees and asylees — including polyworkers compete for available jobs. A polyworker is one who has 2 or 3 part-time jobs (which employers cherish since casual or temporary workers mean less benefits to pay). Intending migrants would need top-level, world-class credentials to compete for the limited number of skilled migrant allocations.
Countries with permanent migration programs could limit admission to top talents and prioritize principal applicants only, freeing up migration places to skilled workers, instead of allocating them to dependents in the economic and family categories.
The silver lining?
Migrants have a 3- to 4-year window to prepare for the coming battles.