No abstract

No abstract

Over the last two decades, the reinforcement of security-related migration policies has resulted in the perception of the foreigner, and especially the irregular migrant, as a category outside the circle of legality. The rights of foreigners in host countries have deteriorated due to the connection made between immigration and criminality. Restrictions imposed upon irregular migrants' basic political and civil rights have been accompanied by major obstacles to their access to economic and social rights, including the right to health. The events of 9/11 further contributed to this trend, which contradicts the basic premises of the human rights paradigm. Recent policy developments and ongoing international cooperation implementing systematic interception and interdiction mechanisms have led to the securitization of migration. The preventive and deterrent measures reinforce the security paradigm. By contrast, various national and international actors have been successful in defending irregular migrants' rights. At the domestic level, the involvement of the judiciary and civil society enhances the rights-based approach to foreigners. The role of judges is vital in holding policy-makers accountable for respecting the high national standards of human rights protection. This article elaborates on the dichotomy between the state's legitimate interest to ensure national security, and its domestic and international obligations to protect human rights for all, including irregular migrants. It focuses on the changing relationship between migration and security, on the one hand, and between state and individual, on the other hand. It affirms the necessity to recognize the pre-eminence of fundamental rights upon security concerns.

Countries have adopted different laws, policies, and practices that allow immigration officers to request in certain cases DNA tests to confirm biological relationships in the context of family reunification. In Canada, Citizenship and Immigration Canada has adopted a policy of suggesting DNA testing only as a last Int. Migration & Integration (2017) Although there are cases that can justify the request for DNA tests, there are also significant social, legal, and ethical issues, including discrimination and unfair practices, raised by this increasing use of genetic information in immigration. This policy brief identifies points to consider for policymakers regarding the use of DNA testing in Canadian family reunification procedures. These include (1) the need to refine the policy of Busing DNA testing as a last resort^and its implementation, (2) the need to modify the definition of Bdependent child^under the IRPR to reflect the intrinsic reality of psychosocial family ties, and (3) the importance of conducting more research on the use of DNA testing in other immigration contexts.

Introduction: The “sanctuary city” movement is a grassroots, human rights-based response to increased numbers of non-status migrants living and working in global cities (Faraday 2012; Sawchuk & Kempf 2008; Bhuyan 2012; OCASI 2012). Nonstatus migrants live in situations of extreme precariousness — they are subject to detention and deportation if identified by federal authorities; often work in poor conditions; are socially isolated; face poverty, abuse, and exploitation; and are unable to safely access essential social services, including those related to healthcare, education, labour, shelters, food banks, and police services (Gibney 2000; De Giorgi 2010; Noll 2010). In February 2013, Toronto became the first “sanctuary city” in Canada, which is currently styled “Access T.O.” Hamilton and Vancouver followed suit in 2014 and 2016, respectively. The primary objective of Access T.O. is to ensure that all residents are able to access municipal and police services, regardless of immigration status. The policy directs city officials not to: 1) inquire into immigration status when providing select services, 2) deny non-status residents access to services to which they are entitled, and 3) share personal or identifying information with federal authorities, unless required to do so by federal or provincial law (City of Toronto 2013).