Securitized and criminalized: an analysis of Mexico’s addition to the list of designated countries of origin

Mexico’s addition to the list of Designated Countries of Origin (DCO) i.e. safe countries in light of extreme human rights violations and government corruption raises many questions. Using government data obtained through the Access to Information Act, this qualitative study examines the DCO policy and safe country designation process and applies the country designation criteria to the case of Mexico. Through government discourse, the securitization of migration and the construct of the ‘criminal’ refugee claimant have become normalized, leading to exclusionary immigration legislation. While questioning whether or not Mexico belongs on the DCO list, this study reveals the unjustifiable discrimination contained in Canadian refugee policy, specifically the Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act (Bill C-31).

Securitized and criminalized: an analysis of Mexico’s addition to the list of designated countries of origin

Mexico’s addition to the list of Designated Countries of Origin (DCO) i.e. safe countries in light of extreme human rights violations and government corruption raises many questions. Using government data obtained through the Access to Information Act, this qualitative study examines the DCO policy and safe country designation process and applies the country designation criteria to the case of Mexico. Through government discourse, the securitization of migration and the construct of the ‘criminal’ refugee claimant have become normalized, leading to exclusionary immigration legislation. While questioning whether or not Mexico belongs on the DCO list, this study reveals the unjustifiable discrimination contained in Canadian refugee policy, specifically the Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act (Bill C-31).

Guilt by Association: Ezokola’s Unfinished Business in Canadian Refugee Law

Guilt by association is an insufficient ground on which to deny international refugee protection. This was the finding in Ezokola v. Canada, a landmark case holding that Article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention requires a “voluntary, knowing and significant contribution” to a crime or criminal purpose before a refugee claimant can be excluded from protection on the basis of alleged involvement in international crimes. However, the same kinds of underlying acts that were before the Supreme Court of Canada in Ezokola – and are routinely considered under the Article 1F(a) exclusion framework – are also assessed under a second, distinct part of Canada's refugee system called the inadmissibility framework. This article explores the relationship between exclusion and inadmissibility, and demonstrates critical differences in the scope of each framework. We ultimately conclude that Canada's inadmissibility provisions bar asylum seekers from refugee protection on grounds broader than those permitted under Article 1F(a). This renders Canada's refugee claims system fundamentally inconsistent with the Refugee Convention and means that the business started in Ezokola urgently needs to be finished.

Alternative Fact? More Democratic States Are More Likely to Provide Refugee Protection

Democracy is explicitly engaged in two aspects of the Canadian refugee determination process: state protection findings and Designated Country of Origin determinations. Democracy is also implicitly engaged in the selection of countries as so-called “safe countries.” This article reviews the literature on measuring the level of democracy in a given state, and the empirical evidence linking this level to a state’s willingness and ability to provide adequate protection to its citizens. The article argues that the Federal Court of Appeal was misguided in taking judicial notice of a correlation between the level of democracy in a given state and its ability to provide state protection. The article also reviews and questions the use of “democratic governance” as a factor in Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s Designated Country of Origin regime, as well as the implicit use of democracy in designating the United States as a “safe” country under the Safe Third Country Agreement. The article contends that the time has come to reconsider how democracy measurements are used in Canada’s refugee determination process, and advocates for an individualized approach to state protection determinations: one that eschews the alternative fact presumption of a connection between democracy and protection, and instead focuses on the protective mechanisms available to a refugee claimant based on their unique circumstances.

To feel the truth

In this paper I explore how adjudicators in the Canadian refugee determination system assess sexual orientation refugee claims. By focusing on discourse and terminology of questions utilized in the hearing (in which the refugee claimant answers questions posed by the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) Member), I will outline how these questions contain predetermined social knowledge and thus operate as a cultural formation through which particular arrangements of sexual and gendered practices and identities are privileged. However, documents and interviews with IRB staff reveal the presence of a ‘gut feeling’ or ‘sixth-sense’ in determining the credibility of a claimant’s sexual orientation. While some may argue that these feelings represent a level of sensitivity that humanizes the decision making process, I argue that they reveal adjudicators’ application of their own understandings and feelings about ‘authentic’ sexual identities and relationships derived from specific cultural, gendered, raced and classed experiences, which, in effect, re-inscribe a homonormative mode of gatekeeping that may have profound consequences for a claimant whose narrative and/or performance fails to stir the appropriate senses.