Immigration and refugee act - 1951 UN convention relating to the status of refugees.
The United Nations convention held in 1951 initiated an immigration and refugees act that has been analyzed by researcher Audrey Macklin, with the aim of using securitization to support his theory. Macklin uses the hearings held at the Canada Supreme Court in May 2001 concerning Manickavasagam Suresh and Mansour Ahani, two immigrants who were considered terrorists. The writer refers to section 523 of the immigration act to reflect the view of the court towards the case. The response included the deportation of the two individuals to their respective states since they were considered a risk to state and human security in Canada. According to Macklin, interpretation and discretion form part of the methodologies that can analyze the situation that was linked to Suresh and Ahani’s case (Macklin, 2002, p. 16).
Macklin uses various steps to explain the interpretation of immigrants and refugees act by the Canadian Supreme Court, against Suresh and Ahani. According to Macklin, section 53 of the act, is an immigrant poses as a security risk to the state of Canada in view of terrorism, they are due to immediate deportation. The status of refugees forced Suresh and Ahani to be confronted with a variety of factors of the act and the demeanor of the minister. Macklin argues out that deportation in Canada would encounter a substantial risk of torture-breached Canada’s intercontinental human liberties obligations. Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been used in a similar manner, to correspond with the main theory of the article. The interpretation and discretion methods employed by Macklin go with these rules (Macklin, 2002, p. 17).
Michelle Lowry argues out that a patch up of the current Canadian immigration and refugee act stands for the opening transformations made by the judiciary, and comprises of the main alterations made to correspond with Canada’s immigration guidelines. According to Lowry, the Canadian refugee policy addresses the risk of shelter seekers pose to the security of the country (Lowry, 2002, p. 30). Through the policy, the state has managed to manifest a variety of approaches able to hinder access to refugee Canada. Lowry’s article does not focus on a specific case, contrary to Macklin’s article. Rather, Lowry employs feminine refugees and the denial of their claims by the Canadian court with the aim of protecting the people of Canada, while referring to the immigration act.
Article 33 (heart of legislation)
According to Lowry, article 33 contains a context that refugees’ attorneys, education and bodies, like the UNHCR, have distinguished increased tensions amid the language of safety and realism behind negative response. Lowry’s article argues out a variety of procedures in Canada’s immigration structure that generate humanity insecurity for visitors in Canada (Lowry, 2002, p. 29). In contradiction with Macklin argument, Lowry points out a handful of flaws in the immigration act implemented in the Canadian Supreme Court. Lowry also argues that the immigration structure of the Canadian government exploits and endorses national security forums. During these forums, certain measures are plotted out to generate national security and sequentially, create human insecurity for immigrants.
Lowry employs methods that have a feminist approach to explore the means by which sex, ethnicity and social class suppressions strengthen insecurity experiences (Lowry, 2002, p. 28). The article states that feminist strategies and female vulnerabilities have been discarded in article 33, implying that novel national security measures inside Canada’s immigration system will probably have a disproportionate effect on social classes, ethnicities and sexist asylum seekers. Macklin demonstrates a restriction concerning deportation to torture in article 33 that was similarly referenced in section 7 of the Canadian charter. The article uses the dismissal made by Supreme Court in response to Ahani’s case. The court stated that Ahani had not met the absolute principles that were not yet present as a precondition to getting procedural securities that were not previously provided (Macklin, 2002, p. 15).
In order to convince his audience, SCC (Standards Council of Canada) way of thinking provided the legislature with excessive discretion and imperfect security versus liberties (Macklin, 2002, p. 17). The SCC claimed that Suresh and Ahani could not be returned to a state that may torture them. As a result, the SCC protected the human rights of these two individuals. This article exploits the implementation of the novel immigration and refugee act, alongside the anti-terrorism act to argue out the centre of legislation created by the government. The acts do not substantially change the procedure that Suresh and Ahani were caused to experience. Using standard of review and procedural fairness, Macklin has managed to prove that Suresh is entitled to a fresh hearing directly from the minister, to be granted the opportunity to have a logic conclusion from the court’s ruling on his links with terrorists’ gangs.
According to Lowry, for one to be “convention” migrant, on must portray enthusiasm in Canadian citizenship through finding belonging and acceptance in the country (Lowry, 2002, p. 33). To argue his theory further, Lowry uses women from the south, together with the underprivileged to show the consequences they endure because of the implementation of such policies. Lowry also states that these rules are less prone to meet the Canadian selection criteria, making them possible to be neglected for more popular refuge seekers. Feminist groups have had their opinions and vulnerabilities marginalized by such policies.
Social dealings of ethnicity, social class, and sexual category have worsened human insecurity through bodily, emotional and mental threats. Therefore, resettlement has become a focused attempt to leave out the most trivial structure of refuge seekers (Lowry, 2002, p. 35). “Creating human insecurity: the national security focus in Canada's immigration system” is an article that further insights the selection of immigrants to Canada. Lowry illustrates the procedures and policies of resettling migrants in their country through issuing of visas to provisional workers. As a result, the selection criteria are applied to immigrants relevant from foreign states, making self-selected refuge seekers remain but under an extremely restrained extent, far from the reach of independence of the state.
Macklin, on the other hand, views the legislation of the resettlement of refugees Suresh and Ahani under the support of the security certificate on judicial review by the federal court. With the use of discretion, the writer ahs depicted the way the minister makes it easy for refuge seekers to exit the country, but extremely hard for them to come into Canada (Macklin, 2002, p. 18). The minister for citizenship and immigration notified Suresh that she was thinking of passing on a risk judgment that signified Suresh as a serious threat to the security of Canada. Working under policies approved in the U.N. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, discretion applied by the minister proved the author’s argument correct, despite Suresh’s counsel claiming that he would undergo torment if returned to his country.
Refugee claims process-making a claim within Canada
Macklin attempts further persuasion to the readers of the article towards sharing one view about SCC’s logic. The Canadian parliament and Supreme Court legislature employ an unfair “security on top of human liberties” mindset claiming that Manickavasagam’s nationality is a threat to the entire nation. Manickavasagam is an example of the many refugees who have filed claims to the central government of Canada. The Supreme Court ruled that deporting Suresh and Manickavasagam would put section 7 of the charter at risk of national security. The refugee-claims procedure has been argued out under this charter to allow an individual to endure torture should they be found facing life hazards in Canada. Making claims with Canada has submitted an opinion that asserts the deportation order to be in opposition to a Pakistan minister, supposed to be a national defense threat (Macklin, 2002, p. 15).
According to Lowry, the caste of Canada has invested a lot of power into hindering people from making refuge claims on their borders (Lowry, 2002, p. 37). The article further states that the government of Canada has enhanced criteria that prohibit some individuals from making refugee claims once they reach Canada’s boundaries. According to the fresh act, a stable citizen or alien resident is regarded as prohibited in Canada under five principle grounds. These grounds may include security justification, human or universal civil liberties breaches, solemn criminality, crime, and well thought-out crime. Legislation remains a significant method in the article for supporting the writer’s thesis. The theory enhanced by the author states that Canada’s generation of shallow and nationwide security actions ultimately cause human insecurity. Lowry gravely believes that is extremely beneficial for all claims made by refuge claimants, and any accusations of criminal behavior and security breaches to be regarded within the context of an immigrant’s claim.
Tribunal transforming into a board
Lowry states that recognizing conventional security concerns does not make peace or stability in the world, civic interest associations, NGO’s and protesters altered the idea of the tribunal with large concerns of human security (Lowry, 2002, p. 32). As a result, the transformation of the tribunal has not been deeply addressed in the article. Nevertheless, human security has entered a new vocabulary for the liberal regime during this era, causing the change the formation for a broad, run by particulars. On the same note, Macklin claims that the central focus of Canadian foreign policy has generated a legal and human security approach. This strategy works in a manner that varies from an extensively used strategy, engaged in the description of attorneys, protesters and educational researchers. This caused the formation of a board that controlled these policies to interest the charters and acts’ regulations.