No abstract

Criminality is now one of the most frequently used provisions for deporting noncitizens from Canada. Individuals who are convicted of crimes outlined in current immigration policies can find themselves subject to deportation proceedings after they have served their sentences unless they are eligible to make an appeal and can do so successfully. This paper examines 177 reported immigration appeal hearings in Canada involving non-citizens who are ordered deported on the basis of criminality. Using documentary analysis along with basic statistics to analyze the appeal hearing decisions, I demonstrate how gender and racial ideologies shape the outcome of these decisions. Theories of moral regulation, social control and governmentality are employed to develop an understanding of the state's treatment of immigrants. That a significant number of immigrants in this study were not deported, but were granted stays with strict conditions highlights how deportation hearings are one mechanism for differentiating between 'deserving' and 'undeserving' immigrants. This study illustrates how, through the use of racial and gender ideologies, deportation practices are as much about differential exclusion as they are about enforced assimilation. Concerns around criminality rationalizes the ongoing regulation and surveillance of immigrants and the threat of deportation ensures their compliance.

No abstract

No abstract