Barriers and borders after September 11th.

• Author: Dowhaniuk, Carmen
• Position: Feature on Immigration Law

Introduction

The concept of barriers and borders has always been central to national sovereignty. Who is allowed to enter the boundaries of a country and who is not reflects the precarious balance that governments attempt to establish between concern for the state and for individuals. After the terrorist attacks of September 11,2001 in the United States (US), this issue has become inextricably linked with the issue of security.

Canada shares a legal, constitutional, and socio-political heritage with the United Kingdom (UK), but despite those similarities, there are some profound differences between the two countries' immigration policies. Although the terrorist attacks did not directly jeopardize either country, both responded by hurriedly enacting harsh new security and immigration legislation. A comparison of their respective reactions demonstrates how each responded to an indirect threat, responses that were shaped, not by a sense of self-defence (as with the US), but rather by the form each country believes such policies must take in order to be ethical. This spectrum of ideologies reflects attitudes towards migrants and refugees that are currently influencing states throughout the world.

Necessity of the New Legislation

Canada

Shortly after September 11th, Canada enacted the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and the Anti-terrorism Act. The new Immigration Act is the first major overhaul of Canada's immigration legislation in 20 years; thus it was (arguably) much needed and will become the benchmark for how we as Canadians treat immigrants and refugees for years to come.

Much more contentious is the alleged need for the Anti-terrorism Act. Prior to the enactment of this law, Canada had no comprehensive anti-terror law. However, this law was passed even though the government had acknowledged that "Canada and Canadians are not primary targets of terrorist groups," (Operational programs: Counter-Terrorism. Backgrounder Series No.8--Counter Terrorism, released by Canadian Securities Intelligence Services. online: www.cisis.gc.ca/eng/operat/ct_e.html). In the same Backgrounder, the CSIS noted that "[t]errorist activities have always been treated as criminal. Under the Criminal Code, terrorists can already be prosecuted for hijacking, murder and other acts of violence." (Highlights of Anti- Terrorism Act. Backgrounder released by Department of Justice, October 15,2001) online: http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/2001/ doc_27787.html)

United Kingdom

The new Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 [Nationality Act] has been criticized by the High Commissioner of the United Nations (UN) refugee agency as "folly" because the money currently spent by the UK on border security, deterrence measures, and detention centres would in fact be better spent on helping refugees in the regions they come from.

The UK enacted the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (Security Act) as a direct response to the events of September 11th. However, the necessity of doing so is highly suspect since it had only passed the Terrorism Act 2000 a year before. One member of the House of Lords even claimed after September 11th that with the...