Justus Chan

Analyzing Canada’s Immigration Detention Policies: Rationale, Benefits, and Costs

Introduction

Analyzing canada’s immigration detention policies: rationale, benefits, and costs. Analyze Canada's immigration detention policies, evaluating their rationale, national security benefits, and significant human, social, and economic costs. Explore alternatives to detention.

Abstract

This paper evaluates the Canadian federal government’s policies on immigration detention and explores the rationale behind these policies, such as national security, using Parliamentary debates and CBSA data from the federal government. Additionally, it compares these to the costs imposed by the policies including human and social costs, economic costs, and physical, emotional, and psychological damage to detainees and children in the long-term, and damage to Canada’s international reputation. It finds that the benefits from these immigration detention policies are not outweighed by the costs and suggests alternatives to detention that should be explored as a more just solution to the issue that these policies are intended to address.

Review

This paper undertakes a critical and timely analysis of Canada's immigration detention policies, thoroughly exploring their underlying rationale, purported benefits, and significant costs. Utilizing primary federal government sources such as Parliamentary debates and CBSA data, the research aims to provide a robust, evidence-based evaluation. The central argument posits that the benefits derived from these policies, often framed around national security, are overwhelmingly outweighed by their extensive human, social, and economic costs, including long-term psychological damage to detainees and children, as well as a detrimental impact on Canada's international standing. A key strength of this work lies in its comprehensive approach to cost assessment, moving beyond purely economic considerations to encompass the profound human impact of detention. The abstract promises an examination of diverse forms of harm, from physical and emotional distress to damage to Canada's reputation, offering a multifaceted critique. By engaging with both the official rationale and the lived realities and consequences, the paper provides a crucial perspective that challenges the current policy framework. Furthermore, the proactive suggestion of exploring alternatives to detention signals a constructive and solution-oriented approach to a complex issue. While the abstract clearly articulates the paper's significant contribution, a more detailed methodological exposition within the full paper would strengthen the argument, particularly regarding how the disparate elements of "benefits" (e.g., national security) are quantified or weighed against the diverse and extensive "costs." Ensuring that the "benefits" side of the equation receives as rigorous a treatment as the "costs" will further solidify the central claim that they are not outweighed. Nevertheless, this research promises to be an important intervention in the discourse surrounding immigration detention, offering a compelling case for policy re-evaluation and the adoption of more just and humane solutions.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.