No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada By Lucas Sumera Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of BACHELOR OF ARTS In CRIMINAL JUSTICE (Honours) Principle Supervisor Dr. Kelly Sundberg Department of Economics, Justice and Policy Studies MOUNT ROYAL UNIVERSITY April 2019  Lucas Frane Sumera 2019 Calgary, Alberta, Canada No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada II. DECLARATION This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma in any University or other institution and to the best of the candidate’s knowledge, it contains no material previously published or written by another person, except where due reference is made in the text of the thesis. This thesis may be made available for loan and limited copying in accordance with the Copyright Act, RSC 1985, c C-42. _______________________________ Lucas F. Sumera April 19 2019 COPYRIGHT NOTICES Notice One Under the Copyright Act, RSC 1985, c C-42, this thesis must be used only under the normal conditions of scholarly fair dealing. In particular no results or conclusions should be extracted from it, nor should it be copied or closely paraphrased in whole or in part without the written consent of the author. Proper written acknowledgement should be made for any assistance obtained from this thesis. Notice Two I certify that I have made all reasonable efforts to secure copyright permissions for third-party content included in this thesis and have not knowingly added copyright content to my work without the owner's permission. _______________________________ Lucas Sumera April 19 2019 Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis – 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada III. ABSTRACT Viewed through the theoretical lens of securitization theory & moral regulation, this thesis examines deportation and detainment in Canada across CBSA jurisdictional regions. Furthermore, this thesis attempted to explain how deportation and detainment trends changed since 2005, and what may be possible causes. Being a descriptive analysis study, this thesis utilizes a documentary research methodology to gather data, while using current literature to explain border security and deportation in Canada—bolstering results from the analysis on deportation and detainment statistics. The findings from the results ultimately provide new insight for CBSA, as well as for future research into the efficacy of operations of CBSA and the status quo on border security. Findings from this thesis show deportation rates, across the majority of CBSA jurisdictional regions, have been steadily declining since 2005. Furthermore, it was found as deportation rates decline, average days detained and detention rates have increased nationally since 2005. Although this thesis was able to answer its research question in part, it was not able to answer any causes of change because of a lack of literature on the topic—which is a gap of knowledge future researcher’s can address. Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada IV. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In writing and preparing this thesis, there are many people who have supported and guided me that deserve to be recognized. I would first like to thank my parents, Mirela and Emil, as well as my brother, Niko. You guys have helped me achieve so much and I wouldn’t be in this position without all your support. Hvala puno, volim vas. I would also like to thank Dr. Kelly Sundberg for all his time and effort he has spent supporting. Your insight and encouragement allowed me to complete this honours thesis and guide me to reach goals I never imagined I can obtain. Thank you for believing in me and motivating me to become better. I would also like to thank Dr. Tanya Trussler for meeting with me, often for hours, on how to improve this thesis. My thesis would not have had the precision and accuracy without your support. Thank you to Mr. Doug King for all you’re support for developing this thesis. Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada V. TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION .................................................................................................................................. II COPYRIGHT NOTICES ..................................................................................................................... II ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................................... III ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................ IV TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................... V LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES................................................................................................ VIII ACRONYMS........................................................................................................................................ IX CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................1 I-1) Chapter Overview ....................................................................................................................1 I-2) Background ...............................................................................................................................2 I-3) Research Question ....................................................................................................................2 I-4) Rationale and Significance ......................................................................................................2 I-4-a) Rationale ..........................................................................................................................2 I-4-b) Significance ......................................................................................................................3 I-5) Scope and Structure .................................................................................................................4 I-5-a) Scope ................................................................................................................................4 I-5-b) Structure...........................................................................................................................5 II-6) Chapter Summary ..................................................................................................................6 CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................8 II-1) Chapter Overview ...................................................................................................................8 II-2) Border Security in a New Era ................................................................................................9 II-2-a) Border Security Aftermath-- Post 9/11 ......................................................................... 10 II-2-b) Creation of Canada Border Services Agency ...............................................................11 II-3) Deportation in Canada ......................................................................................................... 12 II-3-a) Removal Orders ............................................................................................................ 13 II-5) Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................ 14 CHAPTER III: THEORETICAL APPROACH ................................................................................15 Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada VI. III-1) Chapter Overview ...............................................................................................................15 III-1-a) Securitization Theory .................................................................................................. 15 III-1-b) Moral Regulation ........................................................................................................ 16 III-1-c) Rational for Using Securitization Theory and Moral Regulation................................ 17 III-2) Chapter Summary ...............................................................................................................19 CHAPTER IV: METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH DESIGN ................................................... 20 IV-1) Chapter Overview ...............................................................................................................20 IV-1-a) Overview of Documentary Research Methodology .....................................................20 IV-2) Chapter Summary ...............................................................................................................21 CHAPTER V: DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ......................................................................... 22 V-1) Chapter Overview ................................................................................................................. 22 V-2-a) Collection of Data and Information .............................................................................. 22 V-2-b) Analysis of Data and Information .................................................................................23 V-3) Results from Analysis ........................................................................................................... 24 V-3-a) Deportation Rate ...........................................................................................................24 V-3-b) Unescorted Deportation ...............................................................................................25 V-3-c) Male unescorted Deportation........................................................................................ 26 V-3-d) Female Unescorted Deportation ...................................................................................27 V-3-e) Escorted Deportation ...................................................................................................28 V-3-f) Male Escorted Deportation............................................................................................ 30 V-3-g) Female Escorted Deportation ......................................................................................31 V-3-h) Detention Time ..............................................................................................................32 V-3-bi) Detention Rate ............................................................................................................. 34 V-4) Central Findings from Analysis ........................................................................................... 35 V-5) Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................ 36 CHAPTER VI: DISCUSSION............................................................................................................. 37 VI-1) Chapter Overview ...............................................................................................................37 VI-2) Addressing the Research Question .................................................................................... 37 Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada VII. VI-3) Relation to Existing Research and Scholarship ................................................................ 38 VI-4) Implications ..........................................................................................................................38 VI-5) Chapter Summary ...............................................................................................................38 CHAPTER VII: CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 40 VII-1) Chapter Overview .............................................................................................................. 40 VII-1) Key Research Findings and Implications ........................................................................ 40 VII-3) Limitations and Other Considerations............................................................................. 41 VII-5) Suggested Future Research ...............................................................................................41 VII-6) Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 42 REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................................43 Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada VIII. LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1: Acroynms............................................................................................................................... IX Table 2: Population By Region .................................................................................................... 5 & 22 Figure 1. Deportation rate . .................................................................................................................24 Figure 2. Unescorted deportation rate ................................................................................................ 25 Figure 3. Male unescorted deportation % .........................................................................................26 Figure 4. Female Unescorted deportation % ..................................................................................... 27 Figure 5. Escorted deportation % ...................................................................................................... 28 Figure 6. Male escorted deportation % ............................................................................................. 30 Figure 7. Female escorted deportation % .......................................................................................... 31 Figure 8. Average Days Detained ........................................................................................................ 32 Figure 9. Detention Rate ..................................................................................................................... 34 Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada IX. ACRONYMS Table 1: Acronyms CBSA Canada Border Service Agency IRCC Immigration, Refugee, and Citizenship Canada IRPA Immigration and Refugee Protection Act 2001 CCRA Canada Customs and Revenue Agency CFIA Canadian Food Inspection Agency RCMP Royal Canadian Mounted Police IRCC Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada IRCC CIC Citizenship and Immigration Canada Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 1. CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION I-1) Chapter Overview The two most extreme and bodily sanctions government institutions can impose on an individual is deportation and detention (Pratt, 2005, p.1). Deportation and detention of criminally admissible individuals is fundamental to protecting border security and Canadian society. Therefore, studies focused on such practices are paramount for examining and understanding Canada’s current state of border security. This thesis primarily focuses on the Canadian Border Service Agency (hereinafter referred to as CBSA) deportation and detainment trends within Canada, and how said trends have changed in the past decades. Furthermore, this thesis will attempt to discuss possible causes of any changing trends in deportation or detainment by CBSA—facilitating a discussion on ways CBSA can increase their efficiency in deporting individuals. Using securitization theory and moral regulation as the theoretical lenses for examining literature and data provides an increased comprehensive understanding of ways the state regulates immigration—as well as how governments defines and acts on security issues relating to border protection. Furthermore, the use of documentary analysis complements the theoretical perspective and existing literature—which will be expanded on in Chapter IV. This chapter begins with a background overview of key themes covered in the literature review of deportation and detainment, as well as key methods used. Furthermore, the research question is clearly stated, along with the articulation of the rationale, significance, scope, and structure of the thesis. Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 2. I-2) Background Border security has become an increased concern since the events of 9/11. The actions of CBSA’s actions of deportation and detainment directly connect with border security and safety in Canada. Therefore, themes in the literature review will examine border security from the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the creation of the CBSA, and deportation and removal orders issued by Canada—which are all relevant to current literature, such as Pratt’s (2005) & Chan’s (2005). This thesis utilizes a documentary research method approach to gathering literature, as well as raw data from CBSA surrounding deportation and detainment trends in Canada. I-3) Research Question How has CBSA deportation and detainment trends changed in the past decades—and what are possible causes of any change? I-4) Rationale and Significance I-4-a) Rationale Studying how Canada deports and detains criminally-inadmissible, foreign nationals is imperative to better understanding the security of our border. According to Sundberg & Winterdyk (2006), after 9/11, Canada in a two-year transition, transformed their decentralised customs and immigration inspection services into the centralized Canadian Border Service Agency (as cited in Winterdyk & Sundberg, 2010, p.1). Understanding these CBSA functions and its organizational operations over the past decade can provide a more comprehensive understanding of public safety and security in Canada. The purpose of this thesis is to analyze how current CBSA trends surrounding deportation have changed across Canada for the past decade and the possible causes thereof. Awareness of border security issues has risen since 9/11. Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 3. Considering deportation is associated with being a primary function of border security, it is imperative to understand the contemporary evolution of Canadian trends in deportation, to which this thesis will provide new information using a descriptive analysis to yield reliable and accurate results. This research design operates firstly by using an in-depth examination of evolving trends within deportation. Furthermore, using a documentary analysis allows a comprehensive and extensive examination of patterns surrounding deportation and detainment in Canada— quantifying data to graph changes in trends, while using preeminent secondary data sources to explain possible causes of any changes. I-4-b) Significance Considering the lack of research about deportation trends in Canada, this thesis will deliver unparalleled research into this field of study by providing new data and information regarding the understanding of the Canadian deportation reality in the past decade. This thesis is useful to researchers and government who want to analyze correlations and definitive causes of why deportation/detainment trends change. According to mainstream media, the federal government has been ineffective at carrying out deportation for security and public safety reasons—with a growing number of foreign citizens remaining in Canada despite being ordered out (Bell & Russel, 2018, para.10). Not deporting criminally inadmissible foreign nationals in Canada poses as a dangerous threat to community and public safety. In the eyes of news agencies across the country, Canada is currently facing issues such as the length of deportation process’s. This process of deportation becomes sometimes decades in order to remove criminally inadmissible individuals, such as Faulino Deng who has amassed dozens of criminal convictions since 2003 and ordered to be deported. Yet, Deng has remained in Canada 15 years after his first charge of aggravated assault (Bell & Russell, 2018, para. 1-6). Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 4. Cases studies, such Faulino Deng, reveal some of the current issues with CBSA deportation that can be detrimental to the safety of the country and the public. Studying and examining current trends in deportation can provide insight into the problems of specific CBSA regions, then subsequently comparing regional data to national trends. Understanding these issues is imperative for the prevention of further threats that inadmissible non-citizens pose while living within Canada’s borders. By understanding deportation and detention across Canada, an extensive analysis can be conducted on how CBSA trends have shifted across time and region— developing a more extensive understanding of border enforcement issues. Ultimately, understanding contemporary trends in deportation will allow policy makers greater comprehension when facing issues regarding Canadian border security, and ways to better address deportation cases to increase CBSA efficiency. I-5) Scope and Stricture I-5-a) Scope This thesis explores current CBSA deportation and detainment trends from 2005 to 2016—enabling an examination of how deportation trends evolved shortly after 9/11. Regions of this thesis include Atlantic, Quebec, Greater Toronto Area, Northern Ontario, Southern Ontario, Prairie, and Pacific—stemming from how CBSA classifies its regions of operations. Atlantic region includes the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and PEI. Northern Ontario includes portions of Northern Ontario, Ottawa, and The Northwest Territories. Prairie regions include Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Nunavut. Pacific region includes British Columbia and Yukon. Population for each region was gathered by examining the population of provinces, provided by Statistics Canada, and summing together provinces to Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 5. match CBSA jurisdictional regions. These broad regions and wide time frame wide time frame allows for an accurate analyzation of current trends nationally and among different regions. Table 2: Population By Region Region Atlantic Greater Toronto Area Northern Ontario Pacific Prairie Quebec Southern Ontario 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2,338,322 2,321,927 2,327,238 2,333,027 2,334,786 2,358,767 2,369,074 2,373,250 2,371,356 2,371,210 2,371,095 2,385,779 5,544,057 5,544,057 5,720,451 5,807,568 5,893,719 5,986,109 6,073,373 6,173,134 6,271,560 6,354,744 6,421,368 6,530,572 4,983,069 4,227,663 5,536,858 7,581,192 4,983,069 4,227,663 5,536,858 7,581,192 5,017,847 4,323,545 5,748,819 7,692,736 5,047,992 4,382,500 5,854,225 7,761,504 5,078,284 4444,411 5,965,612 7,843,475 5,116,977 4,500,520 6,048,206 7,929,365 5,149,488 4,534,541 6,133,769 8,007,656 5,177,767 4,582,348 6,260,632 8,085,906 5,201,544 4,626,379 6,412,136 8,151,331 5,220,481 4,683,279 6,553,834 8,210,533 5,237,600 4,731,988 6,648,313 8,254,912 5,275,905 4,795,744 6,747,696 8,321,888 4,507,568 4,507,568 4,550,518 4,567,007 4,581,126 4,607,142 4,632,525 4,669,038 4,701,129 4,733,474 4,767,733 4,826,384 Statistics Canada (n.d) (as cited in, Newfoundland & Labrador Statistics Agency, 2017, p.1) & (Statistics Canada, 2019, Table 17-0081-01) I-5-b) Structure To accurately examine CBSA deportation and detention in Canada, this thesis is structured to analyze literature surrounding this theme and comprehensively analyze the current status quo of inland immigration enforcement, while also contributing to an improved comprehensive understanding of the data analysis and results chapter of this thesis. This approach will accentuate the data analysis—better fulfilling the gap in knowledge of CBSA deportation and detainment in Canada the research question aims to address. Following the introduction chapter, this thesis rationalizes the background and significance of this paper, as well as conducting a literature review and an explanation of both the methodology and theoretical framework. Within the literature review, the main themes include the history of deportation and background information of Canadian border security, who gets deported in Canada, and why people are deported—followed by a chapter summary of themes covered. Following the literature review chapter, an overview of the theoretical approach used will be discussed, and a rationalization of why the following theories of institutional theory Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 6. and moral regulation were chosen to analyze deportation and detainment. Following this, the thesis explains the use of documentary research method as the methodological approach to collecting and analyzing data—which allows for a comprehensive data analysis that bolsters the findings of this thesis. The subsequent chapter will analyze data and illustrate current trends around the notion deportation and detainment in Canada from the past decade—concluded after by the discussion chapter which examines possible causes of any changed trends. Lastly, the final concluding chapter will discuss an overview of key findings and implications for future studies, as well as how this thesis filled the gap of knowledge in CBSA deportation and detainment in Canada. Furthermore, methodological and other limitations which potentially hindered the thesis will also be reflected on. I-6) Chapter Summary This chapter detailed an overview of the goal of this thesis when it comes to elaborating the gab of knowledge in CBSA deportation and detainment in Canada. Since the events of 9/11, border security has become a main concern especially for Canada and the United States. Deportation and detainment are the most extreme sanctions a government can impose on an individual, as well as a primary function of border security in a country. The research question posed addresses a gap in knowledge about trends regarding CBSA deportation and detainment across Canada for the past decade. This was achieved by utilizing the theoretical lens of securitization theory and moral regulation. Due to the lack of literature around deportation and detainment trends in Canada, in addition with security concerns with deporting individuals, there is significance to academics and government agencies to understand Canada’s evolving trends in deportation—specifically towards which regions have abnormal trends in comparison to other Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 7. regions across the country. The thesis’s regions of interests include Atlantic, Quebec, Northern Ontario, Southern Ontario, Greater Toronto Area, Prairie, and Pacific from 2005 to 2016. Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 8. CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW II-1) Chapter Overview Research surrounding deportation and border security is relatively new—especially in the Canadian context where a clear gap of knowledge exists within trends of detainment and deportation of non-citizens. It is difficult to find literature detailing the Canadian paradigm of deportation and border security in comparison with the United States. However, current research is developing, where scholars have now begun to use the term “crimmigration” which refers to the enmeshment of immigration and the legal system (Beckett & Evans, 2015, p.245), and marshalling the sovereign power of the state to punish (Stanley, 2018, p.521). These sovereign powers include immigration authorities drawing upon surveillance and police power to identify and control illegals—subjecting them to severe punishments (p.521). These punishments include two of the most serious bodily sanctions, deportation and detainment. Deportation and detainment are key technologies utilized to; police non-citizens, enforce and constitute borders, identify individuals deemed to be dangerous, diseased, destitute, deceitful, and either refuse entry to or cast them out—which ultimately contributes to the continuous process that determines citizens and govern populations (Pratt, 2005, p.1). The authority over immigration control decisions, such as admittance, and whom to extend citizenship or exclude is inextricably tied to the sovereignty of governments (Wong, 2015, p.3). Expelling these non-citizens contributes to the bolstering of state power and reassurance to it’s citizens that a state’s role is to protect them by managing “risky” populations through any means available (Stanley, 2018, p.521). According to Leerkes & Broeders (2013) and Weber & Pickering (2013), practices of deportation and detainment serve to illustrate who should be excluded and who “belongs”—reasserting the territoriality of a nation state, and Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 9. reinforcing cultural, moral, and political boundaries (as cited in Stanley, 2018, p.521). In Canada, this task falls under the jurisdiction of the CBSA, which was formed quickly after the events of 9/11. In conducting this literature review, it is crucial to understand how the history of deportation and border security evolved especially after the events of 9/11. As a result, this chapter first provides a broad overview of what deportation is and how governments use this practice to ensure public safety. Next, themes of the literature are reviewed. The first main theme of the literature review examines the history of border security and deportation—including the creation of CBSA and the evolution of border security after the events of 9/11. Next, a literature review of who gets deported (post CBSA creation) will be conducted—examining key laws, policies, and identification practices of those subject to deportation. Lastly, literature will be reviewed on why people get deported including a discussion on the moral regulation of immigration in a country. II-2) Border Security in a New Era As deportation is one of the main functions for a sovereign state to control illegal immigration and protect a nation borders—it heavily relates to the theme of border security of a country and is a primary function to ensure such security within its border. Due to the Al-Qaeda terrorist attack in September 2001, Canada amplified its government security concerns which inturn transformed the governance of policing and security—ultimately sharpening the securitization of Canadas border (Dobrowolsky, Rollings-Magnusson & Doucet, 2009 p.20; Murphy, 2007, p.449). Because of the 9/11 attacks, Canada sprung service initiatives to create the CBSA, where several of their main objectives included; investigating, detecting, and apprehending violators of the Immigration & Refugee Protection Act. (Canada Border Service Agency, 2016, para.1) Furthermore, current literature surrounding deportation in Canada heavily Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 10. discusses the aftermath of 9/11 and how this event significantly changed the perception of border security among countries. Key sub themes, which will be discussed, that relate to border security, include; post 9/11 border security, as well as the creation of the CBSA and their role in both deportations and ensuring security in Canada’s borders. II-2-a) Border Security Aftermath—Post 9/11 Since 9/11, Canada views border security as beginning abroad then extending into its own territory—which transforms the border from a physical entry to a more elastic, obscure, and tangible one (Winterdyk & Sundberg, 2010, p.4). Although security has been a historic forefront concern to Canadian interest, the 9/11 attacks heightened the urgency of existing trends and trajectories, which greatly augmented political and popular legitimacy—inevitably creating a variety of new and/or improving enforcement measures (Pratt, 2005, p.197). The United States interplay on securitization of its borders substantially influenced Canada’s security vision in response to 9/11 (Dobrowolsky, Rollings-Magnusson & Doucet, 2009, p.21). Since the events of 9/11, a nativist sentiment has perpetuated the criminalization of immigration—increasing the use of detention and removal of undocumented individuals (Ackerman, Furman, Judy & Cohen, 2014, p.101). Furthermore, in both Canada and the United States, there has been a shift of security discourse from problematizing “terrorism”, to demanding outright bans of immigrants from disputed countries of origin and so called “irregular migration” (Walby & Hier, 2009, p. 125). In response to 9/11, the Government of Canada passed the Anti-Terrorism Act, which is designed to enhance the ability of the state to combat terrorist activity—while meant only to intrude on rights of individuals if necessary (Rollings-Magnusson, 2009, p.83-84). Many other western nations also followed suit, where, to some degree, they reformed laws and law Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 11. enforcement to better secure borders and territories from threats (Sundberg, Trussler & Winterdyk, 2012, p.99). In Canada, fiscal policies dramatically changed in 2001, where the government allocated an extra 7.8-billion-dollar investment to expand the concept of national security, such as increasing funding for RCMP, Canadian Security Intelligence Service, and the new border service agency, CBSA (Murphy, 2007, p.454). CBSA was created in 2003 in response to 9/11 and under the pressure from the United States’ implementation of border security reforms (Sundberg, Trussler & Winterdyk, 2012, p.99). II-2-b) Creation of Canada Border Services Agency The Canada Border Services Agency Act established the CBSA on December 12, 2003— setting out the responsibilities, mandate, powers, functions and duties of the Minister responsible for the agency (Canada Border Service Agency, 2019, para.1). CBSA became one of six agencies under the umbrella of the new ministry of Public Safety Canada (Winterdyk & Sundberg, 2010, p.4). The authorities of the once decentralised customs, immigration, and agriculture inspection services transformed into the now centralised Canada Border Services Agency (p.1). In its creation, CBSA encompassed and absorbed the CCRA customs programs, CIC intelligence and enforcement branches, and the CFIA ports of entry passenger and initial import inspection services—ultimately becoming the second largest, behind RCMP, federal enforcement agency in the country (p.4). The CBSA, under the Act and purpose it was made for, has the responsibility of “providing integrated border services that support national security priorities and facilitate the free flow of persons and goods, including animals and plants, which meet all requirements under the program legislation” (Canada Border Service Agency, 2019, para.2). Priorities of the CBSA include: Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 12. (Government of Canada, 2017) Along with operational reforms in post 9/11 Canada, the government expanded its conceptualisation of border security as dynamic instead of static—thus, the CBSA views its border security as an intelligence driven activity, involving dynamic risk analysis before, at, and beyond the port of entry (Winterdyk & Sundberg, 2010, p.4). Furthermore, new strategies allowed for the continued monitoring of foreign goods and persons after being cleared from a port of entry—becoming a cornerstone approach for the new border security paradigm in Canada (p.4). II-3) Deportation in Canada Historically, deportation was the banishment of an individual from a protected territory for purpose of morality, social order, or “ethnic cleansing” (Barnes, 2009, p.432). However, contemporary deportation, as exercise of sovereign power, is concerned with the right of the state to remove foreigners deemed illegally permitted to remain within their territory—directly tying with the border security paradigm. (p.432). This theme of the literature review will first analyze laws that surround deportation and removal orders issued by CBSA. Next, literature will be reviewed on the identification of criminally inadmissible individuals subject for deportation. Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 13. II-3-a) Removal Orders The most frequently used reason for deporting non-citizens from Canada is criminality (Chan, 2006, p.153). The most current legislation pertaining to the exercise of deportation from Canada is the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (p.155). Under this legislation, a warrant for the arrest and detention of a person can be issued if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person is a danger to national security, a threat to the safety of any person, is unlikely to appear at a proceeding, or for removal (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, 2001) hereinafter referred to as IRPA. This act further defines three types of removal orders that can be issued. These removal orders can be issued either by Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), or the CBSA (Canada Border Services Agency, 2019, para.3). The first removal order is a departure order, where once ordered, the individual must leave Canada within 30 days of the order taking effect. Furthermore, an individual must confirm their departure with the CBSA and if they either leave Canada after the 30-day mark, or do not confirm their departure with CBSA, their departure order will automatically become a deportation order (para.3). The second removal order is an exclusion order, where an individual is barred from returning to Canada for a period of one year (para.3). The third removal order is a deportation order which permanently barres an individual from returning to Canada (para.3). Failing to appear for a removal interview or date will result in CBSA issuing a Canada wide arrest warrant for the individual; once arrested, CBSA may detain the individual in a holding facility before removal, where CBSA may assign an escort officer to accompany the individual on their departure (para.6). Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 14. II-5) Chapter Summary This chapter examined Canadian border security as it alludes to the conduct of CBSA deportation and detainment. The literature review first examined literature surrounding border security, specifically how the 9/11 terrorist attacks heightened security among nations around the globe, especially in Canada where security bills were quickly passed into laws and the creation of the CBSA to mandate Canadas borders. Furthermore, an examination into removal orders showed how Canadian law requires warrants for the arrest of immigrants who pose a national security threat, as well as types of removal orders. Understanding how Canada removes criminally inadmissible individuals is as important to understanding why Canada does this, which can be explained through theoretical lenses. Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 15. CHAPTER III: THEORETICAL APPROACH III-1) Chapter Overview This chapter describes the theoretical lenses employed for this thesis, describing the components of both securitization theory and moral regulation in depth. Furthermore, this chapter explains the rationale of using these theoretical lenses in collaboration with the theoretical framework in examining deportation in the Canadian reality of border security. This chapter first outlines the overview of what securitization theory and moral regulation are— further articulating the origins of the theory and its components. Following this articulation, the rationale for using both theories will be discussed—including how these theoretical lenses compliment each other and highlight existing literature regarding the topic of deportation. Furthermore, shortcomings of using these lenses will be identified. The chapter is then concluded with a summary of key highlights discussed. III-1-a) Securitization Theory Under this theory, Barry Buzan, a representative of the Copenhagen School, asserted the notion that security is about survival, where an issue presented as posing existential threat justifies the use of extraordinary measures to handle it (Sulovic, 2010, p.3). The concept of securitization was first formulated by Ole Wæver in the mid 1990s—being further elaborated by Wæver, Buzan and de Wilde in their book Security: A New Framework of Analaysis in 1998 (Does, 2013, para.1). The main questions addressed by this theory include: what makes something a security issue; what kind of response this calls for; what the specific consequences of agreeing that something is a threat (Balzacq, Leonard, Ruzicka, 2015, p.3). Securitization theory is structured around securitization as an act, as a productive moment, and a discontinuous reconfiguration of a social state (Wæver, 2011, p.468). According to Wæver (2004), the main Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 16. argument for securitization theory is that security is an illocutionary speech act, where solely uttering “security” something is being done—ultimately by labelling something as a security issue, it becomes one (as cited in Taureck, 2006, p.54). Under this theory, the core concepts are arguably the securitization actor (the agent who presents an issue as a threat through a securitizing move), the referent object (the entity that is threatened), the referent subject (the entity that is threatening), the audience (the agreement of which is necessary to confer an intersubjective status to the threat), and the adoption of distinctive policies (‘exceptional’ or not) (Balzacq, Leonard, Ruzicka, 2015, p. 495). By stating a designated referent object is threatened in its existence, a securitizing actor can claim a right to extraordinary measures to ensure the safety and protection of the referents object—moving the security issue out of the sphere of normal politics to the realm of emergency politics (p.54). As a result, security no longer has any given meaning; instead, anything can be security issue depending on what the securitizing actor states—which redefines the meaning of security as a social and intersubjective construction (p.54). According to Buzan et al., (1998), to prevent “everything” from becoming a security issue, securitization requires three steps: (1) the identification of existential threats; (2) emergency action; and (3) effects on inter-unit relations by breaking free of rules that actors would otherwise be bound by (as cited in Taureck, 2006, p.55). The first step towards a successful securitization is also called the securitizing move. III-1-b) Moral Regulation Moral regulation came from Corrigan & Sayer (1985) and is an effort to refine some deficiencies in Marxist’s theorizing about the state (Critcher, 2009, p.18). According to Corrigan & Sayer (1985), moral regulation is: Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 17. “project of normalizing, rendering natural, taken for granted, in a word ‘obvious’, what are in fact ontological and epistemological premises of a particular and historical form of social order. Moral Regulation is coextensive with state formation, and state form are always animated and legitimated by a particular moral ethos”. (as cited in Critcher, 2009, p.18) Furthermore, Corrigan & Sayer identify moral regulation as the action/mechanism that makes ideologies possible. Moral regulation acts as a legitimating activity, with the ability to make certain social arrangements with no justification, while seeming natural and justified to others (Chan, 2005, p.158). An important aspect of the state utilizing moral regulation is the moulding of people’s self image & the moral evolution of social practices—where the state imposes certain sociological identities and ‘proper forms of expression’ through excluding undesirable people (p.158). Ultimately, moral regulation provides an analytical framework for comprehending a states management of immigration and immigrants (p.159). Under this concept, deportation of individuals is as much as the expulsion of undesirable immigrants as it is about making ‘good’ citizens from immigration (p.154). This is done through by denying the legitimacy of forms of individual and collective identity while legitimizing other forms of identities (Dean, 1994, p.149). III-1-c) Rational for using Securitization Theory and Moral Regulation Using Wæver, Buzan & de Wilde’s (1998) and Corrigan & Slayer’s (1985) theory on securitization theory and notion of moral regulation as the theoretical lens, the analysis of contemporary inland enforcement CBSA conducts and the overview of deportation trends in Canada was able to be examined effectively. As stated previously, the events of 9/11 have severely altered border security—causing a massive overhaul, heightening security for goods and Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 18. people entering Canada. Many deem the states response to internal migration enforcement and migration flows within its border to be an essential aspect of comprehensive security (Glover, 2011, p. 78). In the post 9/11 security era, migration is increasingly perceived as a potential threat to security and well being of western states (p.78). By utilizing the analytic tools provided by the securitization theory and Copenhagen school, this thesis can now examine migrations’ redefinition as a “securitizing move”, with actors employing appeals to socially constructed and intersubjective notions of security (p.78). As stated previously in the rationale and significance section for this thesis, news outlets and agency’s have seen a backlog of deportees—taking decades for individuals to get deported in Canada which ultimately threatens Canadian border security and society. This notion of deportation and security in Canada logically connects with securitization theories concept of identifying a security issue pressing a threat through speech acts and creating emergency actions to deal with such threats. Furthermore, this theoretical lens connects with other literature examining the phenomenon of deportation, border security, and migration. The analytic tools of securitization theory provides further securitization of border security and insight regarding the threats that illegal immigrants pose to Canada when coupled with the concept of moral regulation. Securitization theory can provide context as to why and how Canada utilizes deportation to secure its borders, whereas moral regulation can explain who gets deported. Historically, determining who can enter Canada was a way to shape the moral character of the nation, where immigrants of ‘low quality’ would be subjected to various forms of regulation—deportation being the most extreme measure imposed (Chan, 2006, p.160). Presently, an overarching feature in immigration policies, historically and presently, is to build a Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 19. nation of people who fulfill the highest moral standards (p. 160). Using this as a theoretical lens can help discern practices of deportation and reasons thereof in the Canadian context. III-2) Chapter Summary This chapter aims to identify and define the theoretical perspectives utilized for this thesis. As discussed prior, this thesis applies both securitization theory and moral regulation to not only explain how and why Canada conducts deportation & securitizes its border, but who the state screens migrants—subjecting ‘undesirable’ migrants to deportation or extended screening. Furthermore, because of events of 9/11, security has been heightened across the western world, especially in screening measures of migrants who are perceived to be an increase security threat to a nation. Ultimately, by integrating and combining these two theoretical lenses, this thesis is able to use a common perspective, among other researches and literature, effectively examining contemporary deportation in Canada and all of its components. Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 20. CHAPTER IV: METHODOGY AND RESEARCH DESIGN IV-1) Chapter Overview This thesis is a descriptive analysis of deportation in Canada, incorporating quantitative methods for data analysis. Furthermore, this thesis utilises a documentary research methodology for selecting, identifying, and analyzing information. This chapter is broken down into two sections. The first is an overview and a description of the documentary research method approach—explaining the foundations of this application and the quantitative approach used to examine data. The other part within this section will be an overview of potential limitations regarding data collection. The last section discussed will be the collection and analysis of data and information. As with other chapters throughout this thesis, a summary of what was discussed concludes the chapter. IV-1-a) Overview of Documentary Research Methodology Documentary research method refers to the analysis of documents containing information about a phenomenon that research’s wish to study (Mogalakwe, 2009, p.44). Furthermore, it involves a systematic collection of data for the purpose of finding and understanding patterns and regularities (Mogalakwe, 2006, p.221). This methodology is used to investigate and categorize physical sources, either in the private or public domain—allowing for a more cost-effective approach than other research methods such as social survey, in depth interviews or participant observations (Mogalakwe, 2009, p.44). Under this methodology, documents are classified as either primary or secondary documents, where primary documents refer to eye-witness accounts produced by people experiencing a specific event to be studied, while secondary documents are produced by people not present at the scene but who received eye witness accounts to compile documents or have read eye witness accounts (Mogalakwe, 2006, p.223). In regard to Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 21. documents, this thesis draws both on secondary documents, in the form of a meta analysis on current literature surrounding deportation from Mount Royal University’s Library, where this thesis used databases such as ProQuest research library, EBSCOhost, Springerlink, Sage Journals, and Journal of Borderlands Studies. Furthermore, google scholar was utilized as a search engine for articles pertaining to deportation and detention. In addition to these data bases, this thesis also utilized an Access to Information and Privacy Act Request: A-2016-16276 for statistics CBSA data on deportation and detention. Using this methodology for both collecting and analyzing secondary and primary sources of data is an effective method to retrieve the most insightful and accurate results—allowing an in-depth contemporary understanding of deportation trends within Canada through examining public research and government statically documents. IV-2) Chapter Summary This chapter describes the methodological approach employed for the thesis—explaining what documentary research method is and how it applies to deportation. Furthermore, this section provides an overview of how data was collecting and from what sources. This methodological approach and literature generated compliments the data complied from the Access to Information Act. Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 22. CHAPTER V: DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS V-1) Chapter Overview This chapter describes the results yielded from analyzing the data set generated for his thesis. This chapter first discusses the collection of data and information—examining what data and information is collected from when and whom. Next, an analysis of data and information will be conducted, explaining the significance of results and challenges encountered. Following this section, results from analysis will be discussed, and a discussion of central findings will be conducted. Lastly, as with other chapters in this thesis, a chapter summary will elaborate on the chapter and result findings. V-2-a) Collection of Data and Information The information collected from the Access to Information Act for CBSA statistics was total deports, including escorted and unescorted deports for both male and female. Furthermore, there is data on number of people detained and the average time detained. All this data was collected during the years 2005- 2016, from regions such as: the Atlantic, Quebec, Southern Ontario, Greater Toronto Area, Northern Ontario, Southern Ontario, Prairie, and Pacific region. Data was also collected for the population of each province, where individual provinces were added together to match the classification of CBSA regions. Table 2: Population by Region Region Atlantic Greater Toronto Area Northern Ontario Pacific Prairie Quebec Southern Ontario 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2,338,322 2,321,927 2,327,238 2,333,027 2,334,786 2,358,767 2,369,074 2,373,250 2,371,356 2,371,210 2,371,095 2,385,779 5,544,057 5,544,057 5,720,451 5,807,568 5,893,719 5,986,109 6,073,373 6,173,134 6,271,560 6,354,744 6,421,368 6,530,572 4,983,069 4,227,663 5,536,858 7,581,192 4,983,069 4,227,663 5,536,858 7,581,192 5,017,847 4,323,545 5,748,819 7,692,736 5,047,992 4,382,500 5,854,225 7,761,504 5,078,284 4444,411 5,965,612 7,843,475 5,116,977 4,500,520 6,048,206 7,929,365 5,149,488 4,534,541 6,133,769 8,007,656 5,177,767 4,582,348 6,260,632 8,085,906 5,201,544 4,626,379 6,412,136 8,151,331 5,220,481 4,683,279 6,553,834 8,210,533 5,237,600 4,731,988 6,648,313 8,254,912 5,275,905 4,795,744 6,747,696 8,321,888 4,507,568 4,507,568 4,550,518 4,567,007 4,581,126 4,607,142 4,632,525 4,669,038 4,701,129 4,733,474 4,767,733 4,826,384 Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 23. Statistics Canada (n.d) (as cited in, Newfoundland & Labrador Statistics Agency, 2017, p.1) & (Statistics Canada, 2019, Table 17-0081-01) V-2-b) Analysis of Data and Information As previously stated, the provinces in Canada were added together to match CBSA regions. By doing so, the population can be used as a base to calculate deportation and detainment trends for each individual region and across Canada. However, many challenges were encountered in trying to match the geographical population data to CBSA’s classification of regions. The most challenging issue was specifically the geographical classification of Northern Ontario, Southern Ontario, and Greater Toronto Area. The Greater Toronto Area as classified by CBSA encompasses a region that is larger than what is shown in statistics Canada. As a result, this thesis simply used the population of Toronto, as there was no other way to accurately measure the population of what is classified as CBSA. Furthermore, Southern Ontario proved to be a difficulty to match population statistics from Statistics Canada to match its counter part CBSA regions. As a result, to determine the population of Southern Ontario, Northern Ontario Population was calculated, then added to the population of Greater Toronto Area. The population of Ontario was then subtracted by this number to give the population of Southern Ontario. 𝑁𝑜𝑟𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑂𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑜 + 𝐺𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑇𝑜𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑜 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 = 𝑋 𝑂𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑜 − 𝑋 = 𝑆𝑜𝑢𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑛 𝑂𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑜 Northern Ontario is compromised of Ottawa, Northwest Territories, North-Western Ontario, North-Eastern Ontario, Kingston-Pembroke, and Nunavut. By doing this, it was the most accurate result that can deduce population data in for how CBSA classifies its Ontario regions. Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 24. V-3) Results from Analysis V-3-a) Deportation Rate 18 16 Atlantic Region Greater Toronto Area Region Northern Ontario Region Pacific Region Prairie Region Quebec Region Southern Ontario Region Canada Rate per 100,000 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Year Figure 1. Deportation rate based on the different regions of Canada throughout year 2005 to 2016. The deportation rate was calculated by dividing the total number of deports (td) by the total population (n), and multiplying said value by 100,000 to standardise the value across all regions. Furthermore, calculating Canada’s deportation rate was determined using the same calculation—the total amounts of deports occurring across the country and aggregating the total population of each region specified. 𝑡𝑑 𝑥 100,000 = 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑛 As evident in the chart above, the national deportation rate, per 100,000 people, has been decreasing the past decade—moving from 5.63 deports per 100,000 people to 3.20 deports per Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 25. 100,000. Southern Ontario and Greater Toronto Area are shown to the most decline out of any province. It is also important to note the Prairies, Greater Toronto Area, and Southern Ontario are all above the national average for deportation rates, meaning CBSA conducts more deportation orders in these regions—especially in the Greater Toronto Area where it yields the highest deportation rate, for the past decade, than anywhere else in Canada. V-3-b) Unescorted Deportation 100 Unescorted Deportation % 90 Atlantic Region Greater Toronto Area Region Northern Ontario Region Pacific Region Prairie Region Quebec Region Southern Ontario Region Canada 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Year Figure 2. Unescorted deportation rate based on the different regions of Canada throughtout year 2005 to 2016 The unescorted deportation percentage was calculated by first dividing the unescorted deports (ud) of a region by the total deports (td) of the region and multiplying the given value by 100 to determine the percentage. 𝑢𝑑 𝑥 100 = 𝑈𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 % 𝑡𝑑 This same equation was used to calculate the Canadian average for unescorted deportation, where the total unescorted deports was summed up, then divided by the total number Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 26. of deports of the specific year—followed by multiplying the new value by 100 to determine the percentage. As shown in Figure 2., the national use of unescorted deportation rate increased from 54.55% in 2005, to 67.90% in 2016—meaning CBSA has been increasing the conduct of deporting individuals without escorts compared to escorting deportees. As shown in the chart, the Prairie region, Northern Ontario, and Atlantic regions have spikes of increased unescorted deports for the years 2006 and 2009. In contrast, in 2009, Quebec, Pacific, and Greater Toronto Area regions saw a decrease of unescorted deports V-3-c) Male Unescorted Deportation 110 Male Unescorted deportation % 100 90 Atlantic Greater Toronto Area Northern Ontario Pacific Prairie Quebec Southern Ontario 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Year Figure 3. Male unescorted deportation % based on the different regions of Canada throughout year 2005 to 2016 The unescorted male deportation percentage was calculated first by dividing the total unescorted males deported (umd) of a given region by its total deports (td) in that region, then multiply the given value by 100. Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 27. 𝑢𝑚𝑑 𝑥 100 = 𝑀𝑎𝑙𝑒 𝑢𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 % 𝑡𝑑 As observed in Figure 3, all regions, except Northern Ontario, have had increased usage of not escorting male deportees. Although there is a general trend, across all regions upward, Greater Toronto Area and Quebec have only seen a negligible increase—consisting less than 1%. Unlike these regions, Pacific, Atlantic, and Southern Ontario have the highest increase of unescorting male deportations—increasing by at least 15% for the past decade. Currently, the pacific region has the highest unescorted male deports in the nation, increasing from 36.53% in 2005, to 66.00% in 2016. V-3-d) Female Unescorted Deportation Female Unescorted Deportation % 25 Atlantic Greater Toronto Area Northern Ontario Pacific Prairie Quebec Southern Ontario 20 15 10 5 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Year Figure 4. Female unescorted deportation % based on the different regions of Canada throughout year 2005 to 2016 Female unescorted deportation was calculated using the same equation as male unescorted deportation, where unescorted female deportation (ufd) was divided by total deports (td) and multiplied by 100. Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 28. 𝑢𝑓𝑑 𝑥 100 = 𝑈𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 % 𝑡𝑑 In examining Figure 4., the trend for unescorted deportation is sporadic—containing many peaks and dips for each region from 2005 to 2016. However, an interesting notion in this figure is apparent when compared with Figure 3’s y-axis value. This figure’s y-axis has a max value of 25%, with the highest value being from Northern Ontario in 2016 (21.05%). Figure 3 max value is set at 100, with most trend lines lying from the 23.00% - 65.00% mark. This observation shows males composing the majority of individuals who are subjected to an unescorted deportation in Canada. V-3-e) Escorted Deportation Rate 80 Escorted Deportation % 70 Atlantic Region Greater Toronto Area Region Northern Ontario Region Pacific Region Prairie Region Quebec Region Southern Ontario Region Canada 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Figure 5. Escorted deportation % based on the different regions of Canada throughtout year 2005 to 2016 The escorted deportation was calculated in the same manner as the unescorted rate was, where the total escorted deports (ted) was divided by the total deports (td) and multiplied by 100 for each region. Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 29. The escorted deportation was calculated in the same manner as the unescorted rate, where the total escorted deports (ted) was divided by the total deports (td) and multiplied by 100 for each region. 𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑥 100 = 𝐸𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 % 𝑡𝑑 Furthermore, the Canadian escorted deportation rate was calculated using the same formula, where all escorted deports from all regions was summed together and divided by total deports of all regions. As shown in the figure, the Canadian trend of CBSA officers escorted deportees out of the country has been decreasing, where the use has decreased from 45.45% in 2005, to 32.10% in 2016. This observation shows CBSA has been gradually reducing the use of escorting deportees, which can be attributed to several reasons, such as declining deportation rates and fewer dangerous inadmissible individuals. When comparing with Figure 2 this graph shows the reverse trends of unescorted deportation, where there is a general trend, across all regions, of less instances of escorting deportees from the country. In analysis of this figure, it was also found that currently in Canada, the Prairie and Northern Ontario regions both have the largest use of escorting deportees than any other regions in the Country. Furthermore, there are notable peaks for the use of escorted deportation in 2007, ranging from substantial peaks in Atlantic, Prairie, and Southern Ontario region, to minor peaks in the Greater Toronto Area and Quebec. After this notable peak in 2007, all trend lines seem to sporadically increase and decrease year to year but have the general downward trend. Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 30. V-3-f) Male Escorted Deportation 70 Greater Toronto Area Northern Ontario Pacific Prairie Quebec Southern Ontario 60 Male Escorted Deportation % Atlantic 50 40 30 20 10 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Year Figure 6. Male escorted deportation % based on different regions of Canada throughout year 2005 to 2016 The male escorted deportation ratio was calculated by taking the total male escorted deports in a region (emd) and dividing by the total deports in the region (td), followed by multiplying the value by 100 to determine the percentage. 𝑒𝑚𝑑 𝑥 100 = 𝑀𝑎𝑙𝑒 𝐸𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑠 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 𝑡𝑑 In this figure, it is shown most regions have a decreased escorted deport ratio, except for Quebec, where it has had a slight increase from 22.70% in 2005 to 28.20% in 2016. At the end of the decade, Atlantic and Northern Ontario are the leading regions of escorting male deportees—respectively having 52.8% and 44.24% of all deported individuals being male escorted. Southern Ontario was also one of the leading regions for escorted male deportation. However, after 2009, CBSA officers escorting deportees dropped drastically. The Pacific region shows similar trend lines to Southern Ontario but has diminished the use of escorted deports Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 31. since 2005—joining Greater Toronto Area and Quebec for the regions with the lowest use of officers escorting deportees. V-3-f) Female Escorted Deportation 25 Female Escorted Deportation % 20 Atlantic Greater Toronto Area Northern Ontario Pacific Prairie Quebec Southern Ontario 15 10 5 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Year Figure 7. Female escorted deportation % based on different regions of Canada throughout year 2005 to 2016 The female escorted deportation ratio was calculated by dividing the total number of females escorted deports (efd) from the total deports in a region (td) and multiplying by 100. 𝑒𝑓𝑑 𝑥 100 = 𝐹𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑒 𝐸𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛% 𝑡𝑑 As illustrated in Figure 7, female escorted deportation makes a low percentage of deportations in any given region and/or year—typically clustering below the 10% mark. This analysis demonstrates females make up the minority of individuals being escorted by officers on their deportation orders—whereas males constitute the majority of individuals escorted on deportation. This figure also deduces discernable differences between some of the regions. From 2005-2009, Southern Ontario has had the highest female escorted deportation in the Country— Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 32. peaking in 2007 with 20.97% of all deports in Southern Ontario being female escorted. This peak gradually decreased to 3.72% in 2016 after 2007. At the end of the decade, Northern Ontario is the leading region of escorting female deportees—constituting11.54% of all deportations. V-3-G) Detention Time 55 Atlantic Greater Toronto Area Northern Ontario Pacific Prairies Quebec Southern Ontario Canada 50 45 Days Detianed 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Year Figure 8. Average days detained based on different regions of Canada throughout year 2005 to 2016 As the raw data from the Access to Information and Privacy Act Request: A-2016-16276 already contained average days detained, these values were simply imputed in the graph. However, to calculate the Canadian average time detained required more basic statistics, as each region’s average time detained must be proportionate to the number of individuals detained— which ensures accuracy for the Canadian trend line. To calculate Canada’s average detainment, Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 33. first, the total number of people detained had to be summed for each year (x). Secondly, the number of individuals detained (nd) in a given region and year was divided by the total number of people detained in that same year. The resulting value (y) was then multiplied by the average time detained for the same region and year (avgT). This value (z) was then aggregated with other values from different regions in the same year—giving Canada’s average days detained by CBSA. This equation was repeated for each year examined. 𝑛𝑑 =𝑦 𝑥 𝑦 ∗ 𝑎𝑣𝑔𝑇 = 𝑧 ∑𝑧 = 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐷𝑎𝑦𝑠 𝐷𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝐶𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑑𝑎 As illustrated in Figure 8, the national average of days detained, by CBSA, has been steadily increasing from 16.78 days in 2005, to 23.37 days. Every region has increased their detention times, except for Southern Ontario and the Pacific region—each showing slight decreases for the past decade. The Prairies and Greater Toronto Area show one of the most dramatic increases in detention time where the Prairies have increased nearly 20 days, and Greater Toronto area increased 13.4 days since 2005. Furthermore, in analysis of the figure, Northern Ontario has one of the highest days detained in the country. Their days detained is consistently higher than the rest of the country, peaking at 50.1 days detained in 2011, only decreasing to 45.5 days in 2016—which still is the highest days detained in the country. Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 34. V-3-H) Detention Rate 140 120 Atlantic Greater Toronto Area Northern Ontario Pacific Prarire Quebec Southern Ontario Canada Detained per 100,000 100 80 60 40 20 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Year Figure 9. Detention rate based on different regions of Canada throughout year 2005 to 2016 The detention rate was calculated by dividing the number of individuals detained (nd) by the total population (n) of the region in a specific year and multiplying by 100,000 to standardise the rate between each region. This equation was also used for calculating Canada’s detention rate, where all deports in a year were aggregated and divided by the country’s population, followed by multiplying said value by 100,000. 𝑥 100000 = 𝐷𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 per 100,000 As evident in Figure 9, every region has seen a decrease in individuals detained by CBSA—lowering the national average from 29.85 individuals detained per 100,000 in 2005, to 14.58 in 2016. The regions with the highest detention rate are Greater Toronto Area and Pacific, with Greater Toronto Area being the highest, peaking in 2008 with 135.84 detained per 100,000, Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 35. then gradually falling to 39.90 detained per 100,000 in 2016. All other regions fall below the Canadian average, with Prairie, Southern Ontario, Atlantic, and Northern Ontario being the lowest among any region in detention rate. V-4) Central Findings from Analysis Within the analysis, there are key central findings identified. First, deportation rates have been gradually falling both nationally and each region of CBSA jurisdiction. Although Southern Ontario and Greater Toronto Area have had higher rates of deportation, both regions dramatically decreased the use of deportation from 2009 and 2011 respectively. Furthermore, the use of un-escorting deportees has increased since 2005 nationally, and all regions besides Quebec—seeing a decrease of unescorted deportation by 6.02%. As observed in the male and female deportation figures, males seem to constitute the majority of deportation—including both escorted and non-escorted deports. In regard to escorted deportation, the national average has been decreasing from 45.46% in 2005 to 32.10% in 2016. Currently, escorted deportation is highest among the Prairie and Northern Ontario regions, where both regions have roughly 55.00% of all deportation being escorted. Regarding analysis made on detention, it was found detention time has increased nearly 6 and a half days since 2005—currently being 23.37 days detained nationally. Northern Ontario has been, and currently holds the highest detainment time being at 45.5 days. In observing detainment trends, and unexpected observation occurred. As previously stated, deportation rates have been declining since the past decade; however, detainment time has been steadily increasing since 2005. Specifically, Northern Ontario, Prairie, and Atlantic regions have one of the lowest deportation rates, but are the first, second, and fourth highest detainment regions respectively—all above the national average. Furthermore, these regions have decreased Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 36. the number of individuals detained for the past decade but continue to have higher detention times. It seems while these regions do not deport many people, those that they do deport are detained longer than usual. Greater Toronto Area is the third region with the highest detainment time, and although their deportation rate has been steady above 11 people per 100,000 from 2005-20015, and its detention rate has dropped to 39.90 from 121.06 people per 100,000, their detention time increased from 17.4 days to 33.8 within the same period of time. The last central finding was detainment rates, where the national average has been decreasing the past decade. It was also found the Greater Toronto Area and Pacific regions hold the largest number of individuals detained per 100,000 people. V-5) Chapter Summary This chapter aimed to analyze and observe Canadian deportation and detainment trends across CBSA regional jurisdictions. It was found deportation trends have been steadily decreasing since the past decade—along with the use of escorted deportation. It was also found males consist of the majority of individuals being deported, including both escorted and nonescorted. Furthermore, detention time has increased nationally, while both detainment and deportation rates decreased for the past decade. These findings illustrate contemporary CBSA deportation trends and provides future implications for both practical and academic use. Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 37. CHAPTER VI: DISCUSSION VI-1) Chapter Overview As discussed previously, the data analysis section subsequently found many central observations regarding deportation and detainment trends in Canada. This section first discusses the observations and analysis made relating to the research question presented by this thesis. Next, the section discusses the relations made from the analysis to existing literature, followed by a discussion of future implications of the thesis research. Lastly, the chapter concludes with a chapter summary. VI-2) Addressing the Research Question Regarding the research question for this thesis, it was found Canada had substantial changes to deportation and detainment trends since 2005. It was found deportation rates have nationally been declining. Furthermore, unescorted deportation has been increasing the past decade—where as escorted deportation has been decreasing since 2005. Regarding detainment trends, detention time has increased nationally an average 6.59 days since 2005, while detention rates have gradually decreased nationally from 29.85 people per 100,000 in 2005, to 14.58 people per 100,000. These findings show that for the past decade, as deportation rates and detainment rates decreased, detention time has increased among the majority of CBSA jurisdictional regions and across Canada—which was an interesting notion this thesis has discovered. These findings support the research question in part—being able to translate how deportation and detainment trends changed since 2005, but not an explanation to what caused these changes. Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 38. VI-3) Relation to Existing Research and Scholarships Literature in this field of topic is limited and focuses on what deportation is and how it relates to border security of a nation. Within this context, the literature is non-opinionated—only stating the matter of the fact of what border security is and how deportation plays a role in maintaining the security of a nations border. This notion does not necessarily hinder this thesis, as it provides fundamental knowledge to the practice of deportation and how it relates to the security of Canada, in relation to current deportation and detainment trends in the country. However, a weakness present is the gap of knowledge on what influences the changes of deportation and detainment trend, which would be vital to fully addressing the research question. VI-4) Implications The findings in this thesis can contribute to professional practices for the CBSA, and academia. Generally, other researches have examined the impact of the 9/11 events, and how CBSA was the result of heightening security around Canadian Borders. Furthermore, literature discussed how the use of deportation contributes to border and inland safety. These existing researches, in the Canadian context, lack the examination of CBSA action—including analyzing deportation, detainment, and other CBSA trends. As a result, existing literature compliments this thesis by providing theoretical and academic background knowledge on the topic, which is used by the thesis to enhance the analysis of deportation and detainment trends in Canada. VI-5) Chapter Summary To summarize, the research question was partially answered, where the causes of changing deportation and detainment trends was not addressed. This was a result partially because of a lack of literature surrounding the field in topic—where researches only discussed the implications of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on border security and the development of CBSA. Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 39. However, although a weakness, it did not necessarily hinder this thesis, as the current literature contributed to a more comprehensive understanding of border security in Canada—aiding the development of the analysis section. Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 40. CHAPTER VII: CONCLUSION VII-1) Chapter Overview This thesis examined CBSA deportation and detainment trends, and whether there were any possible causes of changing trends. The literature review, methodology, and analysis sections aim to answer the research question: How has CBSA deportation and detainment trends changed in the past decade—and what are possible causes of any change? This chapter reports key findings found from the examination and analysis of CBSA deportation trends and literature surrounding border security in Canada. Furthermore, the chapter examines limitations of this thesis, and efforts aimed to mitigate these limitations. The subsequent section discusses future implications for research—identifying possible ways researchers can build upon this topic. Lastly, as with other chapters, a chapter summary will be conducted that summarizes the thesis and what was achieved. VII-2) Key Research Findings and Implications The most significant findings within the thesis was the analysis of CBSA deportation and detainment trends—showing, since 2005, a decrease in deportation rate and detainment rate nationally, as well as an increase the average time detained for individuals in custody. By using securitization theory & moral regulation as the theoretical lens, coupled with a documentary research method, this thesis was able to effectively gather data to examine deportation and detainment trends in Canada, while using theory to understand what deportation is and how it relates to Canadas borer security. The literature gathered, as well as data from the access to information request, allowed the thesis to answer trends about deportation and detainment, but not possible causes of why there was any change. Although this thesis provided a description of changing trends, this thesis is a starting point for future research on this topic to explain why Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 41. changes have occurred and whether these changes affect border and national security in Canada. Furthermore, by analyzing these changes, research can be conducted on CBSA efficiency in the deportation process. Ultimately more research must be conducted on deportation and detainment in the Canadian border lexicon, as literature is scarce; followed by further research on whether any changes in trends influences the integrity of border security. VII-3) Limitations and Other Considerations As discussed previously, many limitations are associated with the findings of this thesis, specifically, the limited scholarly research on CBSA deportation and detainment in its jurisdictional regions. Furthermore, an associated limitation was the regions of CBSA jurisdiction. CBSA has an arbitrary division of jurisdictions, where many jurisdictional divisions do not match Statistics Canada divisional regions, making it difficult to track the populations of each CBSA regions, specifically for the Northern Ontario region. As a result, determining rates for each region proved difficult. To mitigate this limitation, populations within a specific region were added together to match CBSA jurisdictions—yielding a population value for that region. This was done for all regions of CBSA jurisdiction. VII-5) Suggested Future Research Currently, there is limited academic studies on the Canadian paradigm of CBSA deportation and detainment. This thesis aims to encourage other researchers in the field to contribute to the study of CBSA trends and to examine how these trends affect border security in Canada. There are currently still gaps of knowledge to why deportation and detainment trends change, and whether CBSA is efficient in addressing deportation cases. Ultimately more research must be conducted on deportation and detainment in the Canadian border lexicon, as literature is Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 42. scarce; followed by further research on whether any changes in trends influences the integrity of border security. VII-6) Chapter Summary The two most extreme sanctions a government institution can impose is detention and deportation (Pratt, 2005, p.1). In the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Canada quickly heightened its border security and created a new policing agency, the Canadian Border Service Agency to mandate its territorial borders. Using securitization theory and moral regulation as theoretical lenses for this thesis allowed for an explanation to why CBSA conducts deportation and who gets deported from Canada. Furthermore, using the documentary research methodology allowed for data to be collected and examined—which found CBSA deportation and detainment rates steadily declining since 2005, but average time detained by CBSA is steadily increasing from 2005. As a result, this thesis was able to answer the changing nature of trends the research question posed, but not any causes of said change. Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 43. References Access to Information and Privacy Act Request: A-2016-16276 Ackerman, A. R., Furman, R., Judy, B., & Cohen, J. (2014). Privatizing Immigration Detention Centers. In Ackerman. A. R., Furman, R. (Ed), The Criminalization of Immigration (p.101-114). North Carolina: Carolina Academic Press Balzacq, T., Léonard, S., & Ruzicka, J. (2016). “Securitization” revisited: theory and cases. International Relations, 30(4), 494–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117815596590 Barnes, A. (2009). Displacing Danger: Managing Crime Through Deportation. Journal of International Migration and Integration / Revue de L’integration et de La Migration Internationale, 10(4), 431–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-009-0107-y Barnes, A. (2009). Displacing Danger: Managing Crime Through Deportation. Journal of International Migration and Integration / Revue de L’integration et de La Migration Internationale, 10(4), 431–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-009-0107-y Beckett, K., & Evans, H. (2015). Crimmigration at the Local Level: Criminal Justice Processes in the Shadow of Deportation. Law & Society Review, 49(1), 241–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12120 Bell, S., & Russell, A. (2018, March 21). Canada is failing to deport criminals. Here's why it can take years, sometimes decades. Retrieved from https://globalnews.ca/news/4087292/canada-deporting-dangerous-criminals-ineffectivestill-here/ Canada Border Services Agency. (2016). About the CBSA What we do. Retrieved from https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/agency-agence/what-quoi-eng.html Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 44. Canada Border Services Agency. (2019). Acts, Regulations and Other Regulatory Information. Retrieved from https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/agency-agence/actreg- loireg/legislationeng.html Canada Border Services Agency. (2019). Removal from Canada. Retrieved from https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/security-securite/rem-ren-eng.html Chan, W. (2005). Crime, deportation and the regulation of immigrants in Canada. Crime, Law and Social Change, 44(2), 153–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-005-9000-6 Critcher, C. (2009). Widening The Focus. The British Journal of Criminology, 49(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azn040 Dobrowolosky, A., Rollings-Magnusson, S., & Doucet, M., G. (2009). Security, Insecurity, and Human Rights: Contextualizing Post 9/11. In Rollings-Magnusson, S. (Ed), Antiterrorism: security and insecurity after 9/11 (p.13-31). Halifax, Nova Scotia: Fernwood Pub. Does, A. (2013). Securitization theory. In Graduate Institute Publications. Graduate Institute Publications. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.iheid.719 Government of Canada. (2017). Open Government Implementation Plan: Canada Border Services Agency. Retrieved from https://open.canada.ca/en/content/open-governmentimplementation-plan-canada-border-services-agency#toc4-2 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act [IRPA], SC 2001, c 27 Mogalakwe, M. (2006). The Use of Documentary Research Methods in Social Research. African Sociological Review / Revue Africaine de Sociologie, 10(1), 221–230. Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 45. Mogalakwe, M. (2009). The Documentary Research Method – Using Documentary Sources in Social Research. Eastern Africa Social Science Research Review, 25(1), 43–58. Retrieved from https://muse.jhu.edu/article/262164 Murphy, C. (2007). “Securitizing” Canadian policing: a new policing paradigm for the post 9/11 security state?(Report). Canadian Journal of Sociology, 32(4), 449–475. https://doi.org/10.2307/20460665 Newfoundland & Labrador Statistics Agency. (2017). Annual Estimates of Population for Canada, Provinces and Territories, from July 1, 1971 to July 1, 2017. Retrieved from https://www.stats.gov.nl.ca/statistics/population/pdf/annual_pop_prov.pdf Pratt, A. (2005). Securing borders: Detention and deportation in Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press. Rita Taureck. (2006). Securitization theory and securitization studies. Journal of International Relations and Development, 9(1), 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jird.1800072 Rollings-Magnusson, S. (2009). Buying Security with Freedom, The Vulnerability of Human Rights in Canada in the Post-9/11 Era. In Rollings-Magnusson, S. (Ed), Anti-terrorism: security and insecurity after 9/11 (p.83-101). Halifax, Nova Scotia: Fernwood Pub. Stanley, E. (2018). Expanding crimmigration: The detention and deportation of New Zealanders from Australia. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 51(4), 519–536. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865817730858 Statistics Canada. (2019). Annual demographic estimates by economic region, age and sex, based on the Standard Geographical Classification (SGC) 2011. Retrieved from https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710008101 Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University No Return Ticket: CBSA Deportation in Canada 46. Sulovic, V. (2010). Meaning of Security and Theory of Securitization. Retrieved from http://bezbednost.org/upload/document/sulovic_(2010)_meaning_of_secu.pdf Sundberg, K., Trussler, T., & Winterdyk, J. (2012). Border security in Canada and Australia: comparing public confidence. Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism, 7(2), 98–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/18335330.2012.719093 Wæver, O., Pram Gad, U., & Lund Petersen, K. (2011). Politics, security, theory. Security Dialogue, 42(4-5), 465–480. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010611418718 Walby, K., Hier, S., P. (2009). Securitizing Citizenship, Identity Cards, Secure Passports, and Border Surveillance in Canada. In Rollings-Magnusson, S. (Ed), Anti-terrorism: security and insecurity after 9/11 (p.125-140). Halifax, Nova Scotia: Fernwood Pub. Winterdyk, J., & Sundberg, K. (010). Assessing public confidence in Canada’s new approach to border security. Journal of Borderlands Studies, 25(3-4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/08865655.2010.9695768 Wong, T. (2015). Rights, deportation, and detention in the age of immigration control . Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Lucas Frane Sumera Honours Thesis - 2019 Mount Royal University