Features
Winnipeg’s own Jonas Chernick discusses how he made his latest movie, “JAMES VS. HIS FUTURE SELF”
By BERNIE BELLAN
Elsewhere on this website we have an article about a new movie, titled “JAMES VS. HIS FUTURE SELF”, which was slated to receive its Winnipeg premiere April 3.
As events have overtaken the original plan, filmmaker Jonas Chernick, who wrote, produced, and starred in the movie explained that the Canadian distributors of the film have changed how the movie will now roll out.
Instead of being shown in theatres, the movie will now go straight to video on April 3, including digital release on iTunes and Video on Demand through such providers as Shaw, Bell MTS, and Rogers.
We had a chance to talk with Chernick while he was cooped up in his Toronto home – along with his wife, two kids, a dog and a cat.
For those of our readers who are not already familiar with Chernick’s background, here’s a brief summary: He’s a graduate of Grant Park High School and the University of Manitoba. He is also an alumnus of Camp Massad, where he was both a camper and a counselor. He served on the staff of the Rady Jewish Community Centre and has appeared in four different productions of the Winnipeg Jewish Theatre over the years.
“JAMES VS. HIS FUTURE SELF” marks the third film that Chernick has written and produced and in which he has starred. The previous two were “My Awkward Sexual Adventure” (released in 2012) and “Borealis” (released in 2016).
As someone who has always maintained a strong connection to the Winnipeg Jewish community, we have been chronicling Chernick’s career in these pages for years. Making films is not an easy route to follow, but Chernick has shown that it is possible to forge a successful career path despite the many challenges that await any aspiring filmmaker.
But now, with the latest hurdle to overcome in the form of a pandemic virus that has thrown all the previous plans for unveiling the film across Canada out the window, Chernick is still looking forward to seeing the film find success in a different way than he might have otherwise anticipated – by going straight to video, something that usually doesn’t occur until at least six months after a movie has been shown in theatres.
We began our interview by asking about how the COVID-19 pandemic has altered plans for not just “JAMES VS. HIS FUTURE SELF”, but so many other movies that were slated to be released soon?
Chernick said: “They actually have announced that several major releases are going to come straight to our living rooms. ‘Trolls’ – which was expected to be a huge blockbuster, is going to be released straight to digital.”
I wondered whether Chernick himself was going to take a financial hit over the change in plans for how the movie is going to be released.
Chernick explained that “the way it works with my film and the way I think most films – certainly Canadian films, is we’ve already sold the Canadian rights to the movie to a Canadian distribution company; in our case, they’re called Northern Banner Releasing. I’ve done a number of films with them; they’re wonderful partners – and they’ve had the Canadian rights to this movie for years.
“The way it works is they help us make the film by prebuying the Canadian rights, so the revenue from Canada goes through them and, if the movie does very well – sure, we’ll get something called ‘overages’, which means some of the profits will flow through to the producers, including me. But, that’s not really a concern for my team. We just want the movie to be seen by as many people as we can. Nobody gets into the independent film business to make millions of dollars.
“Luckily for me, as an actor, writer, producer, story editor, consultant – I do fine with multiple projects, but nobody is in this to become a millionaire. We’re artists, we made a movie – and we’re very proud of it. We made one that we think people will really like – it’s an audience friendly movie.”
I said to Chernick that I always enjoy helping to promote one of his new movies, saying to him “It’s like having a baby again: You go through the same steps. This time around though, the baby’s in the hospital and you’re not sure when it’s going to come out.”
It had been four years since I last spoke with Chernick – just after “Borealis” was released, and I noted that he had mentioned that back in 2016, while he ”had several irons in the fire”, there was one movie in particular that he thought had the best chance of being made.
Chernick agreed, saying: “This was the one that people were most excited about when I pitched it, so I felt like we had a good chance at getting this one made.”
I noted that this was now the third film that Chernick had written and produced, and in which he had starred – and about which I had now written, so some day I will be able to write about “the pantheon of Jonas Chernick movies” because I’ve never used the word “pantheon” in a sentence before.
It was following release of “My Awkward Sexual Adventure” in 2012 that Chernick met the guy who eventually became the director of “JAMES VS. HIS FUTURE SELF”, Jeremy LaLonde. They were both at a California film festival and someone introduced them to each other as the two Canadians who had just made “sex comedies”. In time, Chernick would end up starring in a LaLonde film called “How to Plan an Orgy in a Small Town” (which can be purchased on iTunes, Chernick said).
As people who are involved in the film industry are prone to do, Chernick and LaLonde traded ideas – and scripts, back and forth, bouncing ideas off one another, until the idea for “JAMES VS. HIS FUTURE SELF” began to take hold – in 2016.
According to Chernick though, before they began to focus on “JAMES VS. HIS FUTURE SELF”, LaLonde had asked him whether Chernick had “any ideas in the science fiction world” and Chernick said “I have one idea that’s not much of an idea and I kind of pitched it to him in probably two sentences – and he loved it and said ‘let’s develop that, let’s flesh that out’, and very quickly we turned that into what became “JAMES VS. HIS FUTURE SELF”.
We discussed how the drastic change in how the movie is going to be released might affect the kind of “buzz” that a movie needs to develop in order to be successful.
Chernick explained: “Normally a movie that gets released on digital or VOD (Video on Demand) doesn’t receive a lot of media attention because there are so many titles, but in this case we already have a lot of attention. We’ve won a bunch of awards and we’ve played at a bunch of prestigious festivals, and the media in Canada have been very supportive – so, thanks to people like you and other outlets, it’s going to make a splash and people are going to know about it.
“Everybody’s at home! What else are they going to do? You can have a laugh, feel charmed – and enjoy yourself for an hour and a half.”
I said to Chernick that I was amazed how many reviews of “JAMES VS. HIS FUTURE SELF” I had actually been able to find online. “It’s amazing,’ I said. “Your film has only been on the festival circuit, yet it already has so many reviews.”
“You’re right,” Chernick answered. “It’s only been on the festival circuit, but I will say that I am a tireless soldier when it comes to promoting my movies.”
“And almost all the reviews are favourable,” I noted – except for one, “from a guy who complained that the movie was a ‘rom com’ – early 2000s vintage. “
“But, when I read that,” I said to Chernick , “I thought to myself: ‘I love rom coms. I wish they would make more of them.”
“Absolutely,” Chernick said. “All of my movies are romantic comedies. I think most comedies are rom coms. We call this a ‘sci fi rom com’, but it’s less sci fi than it is rom com. It’s truly a romantic comedy hiding inside a time travel movie – with very little time travel…just enough to satisfy the science fiction geeks, as we learned when we were programmed by one of the top science fiction film festivals in the world – the Toronto After Dark Festival.
“We were worried that the audience was going to turn on us at that festival, but we ended up winning four awards at that festival.”
I noted that I wasn’t familiar with that particular festival. I said that I assumed it “was a festival for people who didn’t like to go out in the day time” (which got a laugh from Chernick).
Chernick went on to say that “the real surprise for us was getting nominated for Canadian Screen Awards because this is not the kind of film that typically gets acknowledged by the Academy (of Canadian Cinema and Television). This is a fun comedy with some raunchy humour.”
At that point in the interview I said to Chernick that I wanted to switch gears and, rather than talk more about how the film was made and how it’s going to be distributed, I wanted to talk about Daniel Stern, who really steals the movie when he appears in it.
I said that I purposely hadn’t read much about the movie before I watched it, but when I saw Daniel Stern appear for the first time, I said to myself: “I know that guy. He was in ‘Home Alone’. “ (Later, Chernick pointed out that Stern was also made famous for having been in the “City Slicker” movies.)
(Note: Stern plays an older version of Chernick, who comes back in time to try and persuade the character played by Chernick to abandon his dreams of time travel.)
“Where has Daniel Stern been all these years?” I asked Chernick.
“He kind of stepped away from the limelight after the ‘Home Alone’ and ‘City Slicker’ movies were such blockbuster,” Chernick explained. ”He wrote and directed some films and some TV and then, because he didn’t have to work, he kind of walked away a little bit and he became a reclusive artist.
“He lives on a property in California – away from all the action, and he makes gigantic bronze sculptures in his art studio – and sells them all over the world. He’s an amazing artist, but he hasn’t really done a lot of movies in the last several years because he doesn’t really like leaving home.
“But we went after him pretty aggressively because we just felt that he was the perfect guy for this part. We had a really short list that he was at the top of – for a bunch of reasons, but mostly because we have this nostalgic relationship with Daniel Stern based on his movies from the 80s and 90s – and our movie is about nostalgia; it’s about looking back.
“Also, he’s similar enough to me in his personality and his persona – his lovable loser, Jewish, nebbishy vibe – from his earlier years, but he’s become something else at the same time. He’s now a big guy (physically – as viewers might be surprised to see. Man, has Stern ever put on a lot of weight!) and somewhat intimidating, so we really liked the idea that he was once like me but that he’s evolved into something other than that – and we found that really interesting for his part.”
“And you provide a credible explanation as to why there’s no real physical similarity – except for one part of your anatomy (cue the penis jokes),” I suggested. “Now, that’s one that I found a bit of a stretch – no pun intended.”
I also asked Chernick about another actor who appears in the movie who, I admit, I had never heard of – until Chernick filled me in as to who she is and where I might have seen her. The character, Dr. Crowley, is head of a world class lab in which Chernick’s character is also a scientific researcher.
“Her name is Frances Conroy,” Chernick said. “She’s in many ways an acting icon. She was the matriarch on one of the most ground-breaking shows of all time: HBO’s ‘Six Feet Under’.”
“Oh,” I said, “but you know I never watched that.” (which shouldn’t excuse my ignorance because I usually am quite au courant with useless trivia).
“That show was nominated for five or six Emmys every year,” Chernick added. “She’s also a Broadway star. She’s also been one of the leads on a very popular show called “American Horror Story” (which I always assumed was a story about my own family) and most recently she played the mother of the Joker in the “Joker” movie.”
“Oh, that’s her,” I exclaimed, showing once again my ignorance of an all-important fact.
“Her character has this turn of phrase,” I noted, “when she reacts to someone swearing. What does she call it?” I asked.
“Swear scream…. She says it as if it’s a common phrase,” Chernick explained – as in, “If you’re going to ‘swear scream’ someone’s name, at least have something compelling to say when you finally have their attention.’ “
I said that she’s so ‘self contained’ when she appears in the movie – constantly showing incredible restraint when she’s subjected to a barrage of profanity from one or another of the characters in the movie, especially the character played by Daniel Stern. Also, I wondered, considering how she’s so terrific in her relatively small part, couldn’t Chernick have written a larger role for her?
“I think one of the appealing things for her,” Chernick explained, “is that this was an extended cameo for her. This is something that she would be able to come in and do relatively quickly. Now, it should be noted that, being the pro she is, she didn’t treat it that way at all. She had read so many books on particle physics (Conroy plays the part of a particle physicist, as does Chernick), she was so prepared – she was over prepared – she blew our minds how great she was.”
I said to Chernick that he must be so disappointed he won’t be able to premiere his movie in person in front of a Winnipeg audience.
“I was really excited to be there in front of my home town audience,” Chernick admitted, “with friends and family, but we’re going to try to do some sort of question and answer session online via Reddit or one of these online chat systems.”
I asked whether there’s anything else Chernick might like to add.
He said that “people are running out of things to watch right now. Why not watch a funny, entertaining movie by a Winnipeg Jew?”
Then, I thought to add the most important question that I had forgotten to ask:
“When is the movie going to open in Lithuania?” (in reference to the fact that the Lithuanian remake of “My Awkward Sexual Adventure”, titled “Nepatyres” (or “Unexperienced” in English) had the third best box office opening for any movie ever shown in that country).
Chernick laughed and said, “it’s opening (or slated to open) in the United States on May 1st and in the U.K. on April 27th, but I’m not sure about Lithuania.”
“The Baltic states will be key to your success,” I suggested.
Features
American Graduation Speakers Deliver Antizionist Views
By HENRY SREBRNIK Colleges and universities in the United States have hosted and encouraged a surge of radical and pervasive antisemitism in recent years. Graduation commencement ceremonies (known as convocations in Canada) have been a source of tensions over Israel since Oct. 7, 2023. Multiple schools have disciplined students who made pro-Palestinian comments in their speeches.
But professors have also fanned the flames. Faculty members have played a significant role in legitimizing and amplifying antisemitism on college campuses. They have shown a propensity to whitewash Hamas and vilify Israel rather than examine the conflict dispassionately.
University of Michigan professor Derek Peterson praised campus pro-Palestinian student protesters during his commencement speech in Ann Arbor on May 2. The History and African-American studies academic and outgoing faculty senate chair told the graduates to “Sing for the pro-Palestinian student activists who have, over these past two years, opened our hearts to the injustice and inhumanity of Israel’s war in Gaza.” His remarks received loud applause.
“We regret the pain this has caused on a day devoted to celebration and accomplishment. For this, the university apologizes,” Michigan’s interim president, Domenico Grasso, responded. Michigan’s campus Hillel also condemned Peterson’s speech. “Commencement is a celebration of every graduate. It is not a stage for political statements that alienate the Jewish community,” it asserted. On campus, however, an open letter rebuking Grasso and defending Peterson’s speech had been signed by more than 1,100 faculty members, staff and students in less than 24 hours.
Protesters at the university have also vandalized the home of Jordan Acker, a Jewish member of the university’s board of regents. He will no longer serve on the board, while the attorney who defended the university’s encampment participants from some state-level charges received the Michigan Democratic Party’s nomination for Acker’s seat.
Amir Makled won the backing despite social media posts that praised Hezbollah and included antisemitic memes. Makled posted retweets of far-right antisemitic conspiracy theorist Candace Owens and referred to Hassan Nasrallah as a martyr after he was killed by Israeli strikes in 2024.
Administrators at Rutgers University in New Jersey canceled a commencement speaker on May 15, citing an “inflammatory claim” he tweeted about Israel. Rami Elghandour, a Rutgers alumnus, had his invitation rescinded when his April 20 tweet, which accused Israel of genocide and claimed that Israelis were “running dungeons where they train dogs to sexually assault prisoners,” was uncovered.
“They decided that the feelings of a handful of students who said that my social media posts ‘opposed their beliefs,’ were more important than the experience of the entire graduating class, the reputation of the school, the dignity and belonging of Arab and Muslim students, and the First Amendment,” Elghandour wrote. Rutgers Alumnus Christopher Markus, an Emmy Award-winning screenwriter, delivered the address instead, on May 17.
At Georgetown University, a law professor who disparaged legal efforts to curb pro-Palestinian student activism replaced Morton Schapiro, a pro-Israel Jewish economist and former Northwestern University president, at the commencement, after students launched a petition calling for Schapiro’s removal. The replacement, David Cole, is the former national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. In that role, Cole issued a statement soon after the Hamas attack in which he criticized Jewish groups for what he said were calls to “investigate, disband, or penalize pro-Palestinian student groups for exercising their free speech rights.” He compared Congressional investigations on campus antisemitism to McCarthyism.
Cornell University’s Student Assembly on March 12 voted to cut ties with Israel’s Technion University and condemned the university for hosting center-left Israeli politician Tzipi Livni, part of the school’s campus anti-Israel activism. She was accused of being “implicated in war crimes.”
The university’s Jewish president was involved in a recent campus altercation with pro-Palestinian protesters who had surrounded his car following a campus debate on Israel. The Ivy League school’s Board of Trustees issued a statement of support for Michael Kotlikoff following an investigation into the April 30 incident. “President Kotlikoff has shown a steadfast commitment to Cornell’s values and principles, and we are confident he will continue to lead with integrity.”
Following the talk, members of the protest group Students for a Democratic Cornell followed the president to his car and appeared to try to block its path. When he did edge his way out of his parking spot, they said he bumped some of the protesters with his vehicle. Despite all that, President Kotlikoff was himself the speaker at the university’s May 23 commencement.
A flag with swastikas surrounding the Star of David flew briefly atop a New York University building during a graduation event May 13, as hundreds gathered for an outdoor celebration called “Grad Alley” on West Fourth Street. “We are shocked and deeply troubled that this hateful symbol expressing antisemitism was raised on a flagpole overlooking Washington Square Park,” said NYU spokesperson Wiley Norvell.
Student government leaders at the university had objected to the selection of Jonathan Haidt as the graduation speaker at Yankee Stadium May 14, calling it “deeply unsettling.” An NYU social psychologist and author, he has been highly critical of the culture in which many young adults today are raised.
A network of anti-Israel activist groups coordinated “Nakba 78” protests across the United States the weekend of May 15, with organizers using the anniversary of Israel’s founding to challenge the Jewish state’s right to exist. University of California campuses have faced an antisemitism crisis, with dramatic increases in harassment, intimidation, and exclusionary conduct targeting Jewish students and others labeled “Zionist” or “pro-Israel.” Among many events, University of California, Berkeley lecturer Hatem Bazian spoke at a three-day “Islam, Memory and the Nakba” conference in Burlingame, Oakland and Los Gatos.
Even the UCLA campus Hillel was targeted. The Undergraduate Students Association Council condemned an April 14 Yom HaShoah event organized by Hillel featuring freed Israeli hostage Omer Shem Tov. He was kidnapped from the Nova music festival on Oct. 7, 2023, and held hostage in Gaza until his release in a prisoner exchange in February 2025.
“While we affirm the humanity of all people impacted by violence, we reject the selective platforming of narratives that obscure the broader reality of ongoing state violence,” they stated. “Israel is currently continuing to carry out what has been widely identified by human rights advocates as a genocide in Gaza, while also expanding its illegal military campaign into Lebanon.”
This has become part of an effort to delegitimize Hillel chapters, long seen as the main address for Jewish life on most American campuses. Hillel International asks all its affiliate chapters to maintain an unwavering commitment and support for Israel, discouraging criticism of the Israeli state.
The New School, a university in New York City, on May 2 rejected a student government vote to defund and cut ties with the campus chapter of Hillel. The student senate a day earlier had voted to strip funding and stop collaboration with the campus chapter of the Jewish student organization, claiming violations of “international law” due to volunteer opportunities it has offered with the Israel Defence Forces. They also cited Hillel’s promotion of 10-day Birthright trips and other programs in Israel. Hillel International and other Jewish groups have said that efforts to shut down the Jewish student organization are antisemitic.
But it seems to be working. Swarthmore College in 2015 became the first campus to break with Hillel International. They began to call themselves an “Open Hillel,” then rebranded entirely after the parent organization threatened legal action over a civil rights panel it deemed too critical of Israel. Now, the student leaders of the campus Hillel at Middlebury College have voted to rename its student group, moving to distance it from an international organization they say is too pro-Israel. It was renamed the Jewish Association at Middlebury. Might others follow?
Henry Srebrnik is a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Prince Edward Island.
Features
Tracking U.S. Immigration Statistics by Year: Shifts in Policy and Population Growth
Every number tells a story. Behind each datapoint on U.S. immigration lies a family that crossed a border, a student who arrived with a scholarship, or a worker chasing opportunity. Taken together, these stories form the demographic backbone of the country.
This article traces how immigration has shifted across time and into 2026. By focusing on statistics, we can see how policies, world events, and enforcement measures leave clear marks on US immigration. The aim is not just to report numbers, but to understand what they mean for America’s growth, its labor force, and its future.
Illegal Immigration Statistics USA 2026
Numbers on unauthorized immigration are never exact, but careful estimates reveal striking trends. This section draws from research led by Jennifer Lockman, a senior analyst affiliated with an essay writing service, EssayService, known for blending demographic data with policy context.
Lockman, who often collaborates with professional human essay writers online to translate complex data into accessible reports, describes her process as “writing an essay in numbers”: collecting surveys, interviewing migrants, and checking official counts against lived experience. Her 2026 research involved both government datasets and community-based surveys, making the results more credible.
She found that by 2023, the U.S. undocumented population had surged to 14 million, the largest in history. Roughly 27% of all immigrants in the U.S. lacked legal status at that point. But in early 2026, the trend reversed: deportations rose, border encounters fell, and the total unauthorized population declined for the first time in over a decade.
Lockman’s approach gave weight to personal accounts, such as Central American families waiting years for asylum rulings or Venezuelan migrants finding “twilight” legal status. These essay-style narratives backed the data: 6 million of the 14 million undocumented migrants in 2023 held temporary protections (asylum applicants, DACA, TPS holders), leaving them neither fully documented nor fully unauthorized.
Unauthorized Immigrant Population and Trends (2010–2026)
| Year | Estimated Unauthorized Population | Share of Total Immigrant Population | Notes |
| 2010 | 11.2 million | 24% | Plateau after 2007 surge |
| 2015 | 11.0 million | 23% | Stable, slight decline |
| 2020 | 10.3 million | 22% | Pandemic slowed inflows |
| 2022 | 12.8 million | 25% | Border arrivals surged |
| 2023 | 14.0 million | 27% | Record high |
| Jan 2026 | 13.9 million | 26% | Peak levels |
| Jun 2026 | 13.5 million | 26% | Decline after policy changes |
Key facts:
- Mexico remains the top origin, about 5.5 million people (40%).
- Central America accounts for ~20% (Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador).
- Venezuela has grown rapidly, adding ~500,000 recent arrivals.
- Roughly 4% of the entire U.S. population is unauthorized.
Lockman concludes that immigration enforcement in 2026 created “the first visible dip in the shadow population,” but warned that long-term structural issues remain unresolved.
U.S. Immigration by Year: A Historical Perspective
The US immigration tendencies show clear peaks and valleys tied to events. In the 1990s, the U.S. legalized millions under the Immigration Reform and Control Act, pushing green card totals to a historic 1.8 million in 1991. After that, flows stabilized at about 1 million new permanent residents annually, until the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 cut arrivals by nearly half.
By FY 2023, recovery was in full swing, with 1.17 million new green cards issued. Adding temporary migrants, asylum seekers, and undocumented arrivals, the foreign-born population climbed to 53.3 million by January 2026, or 15.8% of the U.S. population. That was the highest share since records began.
Yet, for the first time in 50 years, the number dipped in the first half of 2026, down to 51.9 million (15.4%) by June. This decline underscores how quickly policy can reshape the chart, from expansion to contraction in just months.
The US immigration chart for the last three decades makes the shift visible:
| Year | Total Foreign-Born Population | Share of U.S. Population | Notable Context |
| 1990 | 19.8 million | 7.9% | Start of modern growth |
| 2000 | 31.1 million | 11% | Post-1990s inflows |
| 2010 | 40.0 million | 13% | Strong growth |
| 2020 | 45.0 million | 13.7% | Pandemic slows flows |
| 2023 | 47.8 million | 14.5% | Border surge |
| Jan 2026 | 53.3 million | 15.8% | All-time high |
| Jun 2026 | 51.9 million | 15.4% | First decline in 50+ years |
The picture is clear: immigration has been the sole driver of U.S. population growth in recent years, even as birth rates among the native-born decline.
How Many Immigrants Came to the U.S. in 2026?
By mid-2026, immigration flows had already shifted noticeably. According to US immigration statistics released by DHS and the Census Bureau, roughly 1.2 million immigrants entered the U.S. in the first half of 2026 through legal channels: green cards, work visas, student visas, and refugee admissions combined. That’s a slight drop compared to 2023 and 2024, when yearly admissions reached over 2 million.
When unauthorized migration is factored in, early 2026 arrivals added another estimated 250,000 to 300,000 people. This marked the smallest six-month increase in over a decade, reflecting tightened enforcement and economic slowdowns abroad.
Immigrant Admissions and Arrivals (2023–2026)
| Year | Legal Permanent Residents | Temporary/Work/Study | Refugees & Asylum Grants | Estimated Unauthorized Arrivals | Total |
| 2023 | 1.17 million | 1.1 million | 200,000 | 1.7 million | ~4.2 million |
| 2024 | 1.05 million | 950,000 | 180,000 | 1.5 million | ~3.7 million |
| 2026 (Jan–Jun) | 600,000 | 500,000 | 95,000 | 250,000 | ~1.45 million |
These figures reveal a paradox: even as the U.S. foreign-born population peaked in early 2026, inflows slowed soon after, signaling a turning point.
Facts About Immigrants: Beyond the Numbers
Every chart hides a set of lived experiences. Behind US immigration statistics are students, workers, and families reshaping communities. Here are some highlights:
- Top origins: Mexico (23%), India (6%), China (5%), Philippines (5%).
- Education levels: 47% of immigrants arriving since 2010 hold a bachelor’s degree or higher.
- Labor force impact: Immigrants represent 18% of the U.S. workforce as of 2026.
- Citizenship: Nearly 45% of the foreign-born are naturalized U.S. citizens.
- Households: Roughly 14% of U.S. households are headed by an immigrant, many of them multigenerational.
- Economic output: Immigrant-led businesses generate over $1.3 trillion in sales annually, fueling both local and national economies.
These numbers remind us that immigration is not just a border issue. It shapes schools, hospitals, and industries across every state.
Policy Shifts and Their Impact
Immigration ebbs and flows with the law. Every reform, executive order, or court ruling alters the trajectory of entries and the size of the foreign-born population.
Key policy-linked shifts:
- 1990s IRCA reforms legalized millions, creating the largest one-year spike in green cards.
- Post-9/11 tightened visa screening and slowed flows in the early 2000s.
- 2017–2020 restrictions cut refugee resettlement to historic lows (below 20,000 annually).
- 2021–2023 expansions raised ceilings again and offered protections to Venezuelans and Afghans.
- 2026 enforcement showed the first measurable decline in the total immigrant population in half a century.
Taken together, these shifts reveal a pendulum effect: expansion, contraction, and expansion again. Immigration policy has never been static, and each wave leaves long shadows in classrooms, in labor markets, and in family reunifications.
Conclusion: The Changing Shape of Immigration
Looking ahead, immigration will remain central to U.S. growth. With declining birth rates among native-born Americans, new arrivals sustain both population and workforce numbers. Whether immigration grows or contracts depends less on individual desire to migrate than on how U.S. policy balances enforcement and opportunity.
Immigration data is a mirror. It reflects national priorities, international crises, and the human drive to move. The question is not whether immigration shapes the U.S., but how the U.S. chooses to shape immigration.
Features
Brave American hero only US soldier to be included among Yad Vashem’s Righteous Among the Nations
By MYRON LOVE Courage is a rare quality. More than 80 years ago, Roddie Edmonds, a master sergeant in the American army, showed what courage looked like when the then-POW successfully stared down the barrel of a Nazi gun, thereby saving the lives of about 200 of his Jewish fellow POWS.
In 2013, Edmonds became the first American soldier to be inducted into Yad Vashem’s list of Righteous Among the Nations – a designation that recognizes non-Jews who risked their lives during World war II to shelter and save Jewish lives. Earlier this year, he was also awarded the Medal of Honour, America’s highest medal for bravery.
On Wednesday, May 6, Roddie’s son, Chris, was in Winnipeg to tell his father’s story. Speaking at the Truth and Life Worship Centre in St. Vital to an audience of Jewish community members and non-Jewish supporters, the younger Edmonds, a Christian pastor from Tennessee, related how his father – at the age of 14 – in Chris’s words, committed himself to Jesus.
In the brutal winter of 1944, Master Sargent Roddie Edmonds and his 106th infantry division were thrust into action for the first time, in the Ardennes Forest. They were unprepared for what was to come.
Five days after their posting, they were hit hard by an unexpected Nazi onslaught in what became known as the Battle of the Bulge, the last great battle of the war on the Western front. Edmonds’ unit was quickly overrun and he was one of as many as 9,000 GIs who were taken prisoner.
Chris Edmonds described the POWs’ dire situation in detail. They were forced to walk for four days in freezing cold, deep snow, and constant rain. They were then put into the Nazis’ notorious sealed box cars – standing room only – and subsequently divided among several POW camps.
Master Sgt. Edmonds found himself the ranking officer responsible for almost 1,300 POWS – among them about 200 Jewish American GIs. It was Nazi practice to separate the Jewish GIs from the others and ship them to concentration camps.
On January 7, the POWs’ first day in camp, the Nazi commandant ordered Edmonds to tell only the Jewish GIs to turn up for roll call the next morning. The night before, Edmonds spoke to all of his charges and they all agreed on a plan. The next morning, all of the GIs presented themselves – including the weak and the sick – all claiming to be Jewish.
The Nazi commandant – red in the face with anger – put a gun to the 22-year-old Edmond’s head and demanded that he identify the Jewish GIs. He refused. Instead, according to his son, Chris, Roddie calmly pointed out to the commandant that the war would soon be over, the Allies were going to win, and if the commandant were to harm any of the POWs, he might be prosecuted for war crimes after the war.
As Chris noted, the colour drained from the commandant’s face, he put the gun down, and returned to his office.
Liberation for the POWS came on May 5, 1945, with the arrival of a couple of American tank columns.
Chris attributed his father’s bravery to his deep faith and love of God.
“Dad used to say that fear of people makes you scared, but fear of God makes you brave.”
Now, as was the norm, returning soldiers, POWs and Holocaust survivors rarely spoke about their war time experiences – not even to their families. All Chris knew about his father’s war was that he was a POW.
Roddie Edmonds came home, married, had a family, was an outstanding dad – according to his son – and enjoyed a successful career in sales. He died in 1985 at the age of 66.
Chris Edmonds first learned about his father’s heroism in 2008 while reading an interview in the New York Times with Lester Tanner, a prominent New York-based attorney. During the course of the interview, Tanner – whose original name was Tannenbaum – mentioned the American master sergeant who had saved his life.
Chris Edmonds reached out to Tanner, who subsequently invited the Edmonds family to come to New York where the former GI arranged for the family to be lodged at the prestigious Harbor Club and generally gave them the royal treatment. Tanner also described what had happened in that POW camp.
Chris was inspired to learn all he could about his father’s war time experiences. Fortunately, his mother had kept all of his father’s effects. Among his father’s possessions, Chris found a detailed diary of his father’s time as a POW.
As a result of Chris Edmonds’ research, he wrote a book titled “No Surrender; A father, a Son and an extraordinary Act of Heroism That Continues to Live on Today” (with co-author Douglas Century). He also produced a documentary, “Footsteps of My Father,” which includes commentary by Tanner and some of the other Jewish POWs who were spared as a result of Roddie Edmonds’ bravery.
The documentary was part of Chris’s presentation at the Truth and Life Worship Centre.
Chris Edmonds has also founded an organization: “Roddie’s Code,” which is dedicated to “extending the leadership and legacy of his father to future generations.”
Edmonds was brought to Winnipeg by community leader Larry Vickar and Christian Zionist Pastor Rudy Fidel, both of whom heard Edmonds speak in Florida earlier this year. The presentation here was sponsored by B’nai Brith Canada’s Manitoba Jewish-Christian Roundtable.
While in Winnipeg, Edmonds was also able to present his inspiring story to close to 700 students at Gray Academy, St. Paul’s High School, and Vincent Massey Collegiate.
In closing, Chris Edmonds noted that his father’s actions in that POW cap didn’t just save the 200 Jewish POWs who were there, but also their future generations – numbering around 20,000, who would not have been alive today.
“My dad used to say that there are two main purposes in life,” Chris said. “