ABSTRACT
Compared with other Western liberal states, the association of humanitarian migration with insecurity in Canada is relatively weak. Indeed, it is this perceived lack of concern with border security that has led to concerns from its southerly neighbor that Canada’s borders are porous and that it has become a haven for terrorists. Yet, as the previous chapters indicate, in Canada, as in other states of the world, migrants (including humanitarian migrants) have always been associated with insecurity. Canada’s history is replete with policies and practices that lay bare this connection: race-based immigration quotas, head taxes, visa requirements and carrier sanctions to name a few. Even more notorious instances surround the refusal to take in Jewish refugees prior to the Second World War and the turning away of Sikh migrants aboard the Komagata Maru. All of these policies have been justified in the name of national security. Yet, Canada’s history may also be told as one of generosity and humani-
tarianism, from its large-scale resettlement practices, high success rates of asylum claims to relatively generous socio-economic rights it affords to refugees and asylum seekers. The Canadian people hold the remarkable distinction as the sole people to have been awarded the Nansen Medal for the protection of refugees. In comparison with other Western states Canada’s response to asylum seekers and refugees, a few historical instances notwithstanding, has been less pre-occupied by security concerns. As such, the Canadian case represents an exceptional opportunity to study instances in which national security has been evoked in response to asylum flows and to identify the factors that contribute to successful securitization, and those that have favored de-securitization. In this chapter I examine two such cases: the 1986-87 boat arrivals and the 1999 boat arrivals.
