Refugee Law after 9/11: Sanctuary and Security in Canada and the US

Description

Common wisdom suggests that the 9/11 terrorist attacks changed everything about the character of refugee law in the United States, and even in neighbouring Canada. But did they? And if so, how do the responses of the two countries, including heightened security and more pronounced security anxieties, compare in terms of refugee rights? Refugee Law after 9/11 undertakes a detailed, systematic examination of available legal, policy, and empirical evidence to reveal a great irony: refugee rights were already so whittled down in both countries before 9/11 that there was relatively little room for negative change after the attacks. It also shows that the Canadian refugee law regime reacted to 9/11 in much the same way as its US counterpart, raising significant questions about the power of security relativism and the cogency of the Canadian and US national self-image. Obiora Okafor explores the logic behind changes in refugee law in Canada and the United States following 9/11 and up to the present, uncovering the reasons for the orientation of their respective refugee rights regimes in specific ways. Dedication Contents Acknowledgments Introduction: Refugee Law after 9/11: A Canada-US Comparison 1 Deportations to Torture 2 The Detention of Asylum Seekers and Refugees 3 Terrorism-Related Inadmissibility 4 The Canada-US Safe Third Country Measure Conclusion: Refugee Law, Security Relativism, and National Self-Image in Canada and the United States after 9/11 Notes Index