Detention

Why try to deport a man in Canada since childhood? �鶹ֱ��app expert looks at the case of Abdoul Abdi

noreen.rasbach — Wed, 14 Mar 2018 15:13:30 +0000

Why try to deport a man in Canada since childhood? �鶹ֱ��app expert looks at the case of Abdoul Abdi noreen.rasbach Wed, 03/14/2018 - 11:13

Cutline

Abdoul Abdi (right) is seen in this Facebook photo as a child (photo via Facebook)

Amy Nethery

Stephanie J Silverman

Topic

Our Community

Detention

Global

The Conversation

Subheadline

The Conversation with �鶹ֱ��app's Stephanie J Silverman and Amy Nethery of Deakin University

Abdoul Kadir Abdi is facing deportation from Canada to Somalia.

As migration scholars and detention experts, we will show that while perhaps lawful, this deportation is the accumulation of governmental historical, social and moral failures. Abdi arrived in Canada as a six-year-old child, and is a product of this country. His deportation should be halted.

Abdi was born in Saudi Arabia to a Somali mother, and spent four years in a Djibouti refugee camp. Eighteen years ago, he was only six years old when he claimed asylum in Nova Scotia. With his mother deceased, Abdi arrived in the care of his sister and aunts.

The province intervened to remove Abdi from his aunts’ care. The Nova Scotia Department of Community Services then placed him in foster care until he aged out of the system. Abdi was in 31 different “care” arrangements: permanent and temporary foster homes, halfway houses, hospitals, wards and so on.

Not one addressed his struggles, and some were abusive. The government did not apply for citizenship for Abdi despite pressure from the Abdi family.

When Abdi was about 18 years old, he was convicted on criminal charges. He served four-and-a-half years in prison and was released to a halfway house. It was at the gates of this house that the Canada Border Services Agency arrested him, took him to an immigration detention facility and began deportation proceedings to send him to Somalia.

Abdi has never lived in Somalia, a country under an extreme travel advisory alert.

Abdoul Abdi is seen in this handout photo from the court proceedings in Halifax (Handout photo via The Canadian Press)

Until they apply for and are granted citizenship, asylum-seekers are only granted permanent residence in Canada. Canadian law stipulates that asylum-seekers or permanent residents who receive criminal convictions carrying custodial sentences exceeding six months may be deported. Abdi’s conviction falls under this category.

This deportation order is wrong. With the support of his sister Fatuma Abdi, the Toronto chapter of Black Lives Matter has begun an anti-deportation campaign called All Out 4 Abdoul. His removal is being legally contested by his lawyer, Benjamin Perryman, with the support of the International Human Rights Program at the University of Toronto.

Through news conferences, social media and mainstream and prominent media coverage, Abdi and his supporters have called on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Ahmed Hussen, the minister of immigration, refugees and citizenship, to use their discretionary powers to stop the deportation. The Federal Court is now hearing the case.

Why has Abdi's plight struck such a visceral chord?

‘Scapegoats’ for poor policy

We argue that Abdi’s case illuminates how Canada is failing asylum-seekers, criminalized people and visible minorities. The federal government’s ongoing and persistent efforts to banish Abdi to Somalia indicate how asylum-seekers have once again become the scapegoats for poor policy.

We find local and federal government failures at various points culminating in this deportation order. On these grounds, we argue it’s the government’s responsibility to stop the deportation.

Firstly, Nova Scotia failed to provide Abdi’s aunts, themselves newcomers, with the full support they needed to raise the child and to keep him safe.

The decision to remove the child from his aunts contradicts the evidence that the best outcomes for children occur when they remain with their families. Nova Scotia is grappling with a disturbing history of abuses at the now-shuttered Nova Scotia �鶹ֱ��app for Colored Children in Dartmouth, where a provincial inquiry is entering its third phase. The decision to remove Abdi should be situated within a system plagued by institutional racism.

What’s more, as a Crown ward, the state shuttled Abdi among 31 different living arrangements in 12 years – on average, this is a new home every four-and-a-half months. Abdi has alleged that some of these homes were abusive.

Clearly, the state failed to provide him with sufficient care and support to assist him to make good life choices.

Crown wards at greater risk of committing crimes

Governments cannot control an individual’s actions, but we know that people from disadvantaged backgrounds commit crimes at a higher rate than the overall population. As a Crown ward, this child would have been at greater risk of offending. The community is right to expect that the support provided to Abdi should have been commensurate to the risk.

The Nova Scotia Department of Community Services also failed to execute its duty to assist Abdi in becoming a citizen. Given the logistical and other barriers hindering Crown wards from applying, this assistance was its policy-mandated responsibility.

Surely, it’s logical to have more long-term residents as citizens, and fewer people here as asylum-seekers, permanent residents, or other less-than-full statuses. At least 15 cases of former child refugees facing deportation are surfacing; of these, at least three have been deported to a country they have no connection to because of criminal activity after they turned 18.

Fatouma Abdi, second from left, Abdoul Abdi’s sister, heads from Federal Court with supporters after a hearing to determine whether deportation proceedings should be halted. The judge has reserved his decision (photo by Andrew Vaughan/The Canadian Press)

Morality aside, this practice breaches international law: Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 7 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child state that everyone has the right to nationality and citizenship.

Finally, and most fundamentally, the government of Canada is failing to recognize that Abdi, who arrived in Canada as a six-year-old child, is the product of their state. Indeed it could be argued that, as a Crown ward, Abdi is even more a product of the Canadian system than others who were raised within a nuclear family unit.

By attempting to deport Abdi, the Canadian government has indicated an adherence to biological determinism: The view that Abdi's “nurture” – his social ties, relationships and mutually reinforcing personal and community histories – matters less than his “nature” as a perpetual foreigner.

The Somali Canadian community already faces significant challenges from “systematic, institutional racism on the part of schools, police and intelligence agencies and the media.” It would be a shame if the federal government fed in to false – not to mention racist – perceptions by continuing its efforts to deport Abdi.

Stephanie J Silverman is an adjunct professor of ethics, society and law at the University of Toronto. Amy Nethery is a senior lecturer in politics and policy studies at Deakin University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

More than 200 Canadian children housed in Toronto immigration detention facility, says new �鶹ֱ��app report

ullahnor — Thu, 23 Feb 2017 17:30:11 +0000

More than 200 Canadian children housed in Toronto immigration detention facility, says new �鶹ֱ��app report

ullahnor Thu, 02/23/2017 - 12:30

Topic

City & Culture

Law

Human Rights

international human rights program

Children

Detention

Canada has housed more than two hundred Canadian children in detention since 2011 in Toronto’s Immigration Holding Centre, alongside hundreds of formally detained non-Canadian children, says a report released today by the University of Toronto’s International Human Rights Program (IHRP).

The report, Invisible Citizens: Canadian Children in Immigration Detention, includes six case studies of Canadian children who were housed in detention or separated from their detained parents in Toronto and Laval, Que. One of the children housed in detention was four months old when officials detained his mother.

The report recommends that Canada urgently implement alternatives to the detention of children, rather than confining them in immigration detention facilities or separating them from their detained parents.

“It is important for Canadians to be aware of this report,” said �鶹ֱ��app Law Professor Audrey Macklin, director of the Centre for Criminology and Sociolegal Studies and chair in human rights law. “Too often, we are complacent about what the state does to non-citizens. Learning that the same hardship and harms of detention are inflicted on citizen and non-citizen children alike compels us to address why we think it's OK to do this to any child.”

The IHRP interviewed nine detained and formerly detained mothers of Canadian children from the Middle East, West Africa, Central America and the Caribbean. The mothers described the arbitrary and rigid rules of the detention facilities in Toronto and Laval, and how the conditions eroded their capacity to effectively protect and care for their children.

“Canadians should be aware about human rights violations that are happening at home because this is the place that they can change things and make a difference,” said Samer Muscati, director of IHRP. “It's Canadians' responsibility to ensure that their government is accountable and not violating the most basic human rights, particularly of those who are some of the most vulnerable members of our society. These violations are particularly out of step with Canada's renewed efforts to become a global leader as a multicultural safe haven for refugees and migrants.”

According to figures recently obtained by the IHRP through access to information requests, an average of at least 48 Canadian children were housed in detention each year between 2011 and 2015 in Toronto alone.

New figures released by Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) to the IHRP in February 2017 indicate a significant decrease over the past year, as CBSA has taken some important initial steps to address long-standing problems. However, the IHRP is concerned that the frequency of family separation has not seen a similar reduction, and that the best interests of children do not receive adequate attention from immigration authorities.

The 60-page report is a follow-up to the IHRP’s September 2016 report on non-Canadian children in immigration detention, No Life for a Child: A Roadmap to End Immigration Detention of Children and Family Separation.

The new report reiterates that families in detention should be released outright or given access to community-based alternatives to detention, such as reporting obligations, financial deposits and guarantors.

“Canadian children are invisible in Canada’s immigration detention system,” said Muscati. “While all detention of children is horrible, these children are particularly vulnerable because they lack important legal safeguards, including their own detention review hearings.”

He hopes that ultimately there will be a change in Canada's laws and policies to make sure that international standards are applied on immigration issues. Other countries such as Sweden and Belgium are using alternatives to detention effectively, Muscati said.

“Canada needs to do all that it can to implement alternatives to detention so that children aren't locked up and traumatized,” he said.

Invisible Citizens is based on interviews conducted since November 2016 with lawyers, social workers, refugee advocates, mental health experts, as well as detained and formerly detained mothers. The report includes six case studies of Canadian children who were housed in detention or separated from their detained parents in Toronto and Laval. Without exception, the mothers expressed anguish about the detrimental consequences of the experience on their children’s physical and mental health.

The report profiles a four month old whose mother was detained at the Toronto detention facility. The mother was detained because CBSA suspected that she was a flight risk, and the baby accompanied her as a “guest” of the facility.

According to the mother, she constantly felt pressured by CBSA to part with her infant son. “But I’m his mom, I’m his caregiver, he’s breastfeeding, how can he leave?” she said. After three months in detention, the mother was diagnosed with Major Depressive Episode and Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. “I think they robbed a lot from me and my baby.”

The report builds upon years of advocacy by Canada-based refugee and child rights groups that have called on the government to ensure that children’s best interests are a primary consideration in decisions that affect them. International bodies have also repeatedly criticized Canada for its immigration detention practices.

The report welcomes recent initiatives by Canada’s federal government and CBSA, which have indicated a strong willingness to reform the immigration detention regime, with a particular view to protecting children and addressing mental health issues. The government has also expressed its intention to engage extensively with non-governmental organizations and other civil society stakeholders in the process of revising relevant policy and designing new programs.

Invisible Citizens reaffirms the 11 recommendations from the September 2016 report, which aim to ensure that Canada complies with its international human rights obligations. The report also builds upon the recommendations of the IHRP’s 2015 report, We Have No Rights: Arbitrary imprisonment and cruel treatment of migrants with mental health issues in Canada. Given the existing discretion under the law, authorities can implement these recommendations in practice even before legislative and regulatory changes are instituted, human rights experts said.

“The Canadian government and CBSA continue to take serious steps that have produced some initial progress,” said Hanna Gros, IHRP senior researcher and author of the report. “But it’s important that they entrench these initial advances into law and practice so that Canada lives up to its reputation as a multicultural safe haven for refugees and migrants.”

Why this �鶹ֱ��app doctor is speaking out about kids in detention and migrants in prison

krisha — Fri, 10 Jun 2016 14:48:00 +0000

Why this �鶹ֱ��app doctor is speaking out about kids in detention and migrants in prison krisha Fri, 06/10/2016 - 10:48

Cutline

photo by GRC-RCMP via Flickr)

Carolyn Morris

Author legacy

Carolyn Morris

Topic

Canada Border Services

Refugees

Subheadline

“We’re going to keep advocating against these transfers to prisons, and also against keeping people, including children, in indefinite detention”

Doctors have a long tradition of speaking out for society’s most vulnerable – using research and activism to improve the social determinants of health in disadvantaged communities.

Following this tradition, department of psychiatry lecturers Drs. Michaela Beder and Rachel Kronick, and department of community and family medicine lecturer Dr. Ritika Goel, are speaking out against unhealthy conditions and practices in Canadian detention centres.

Faculty of Medicine writer Carolyn Morris spoke to Dr. Beder about advocacy in health care.

How did you first get involved in advocacy?

I grew up learning about social justice and always felt that I had an obligation to address systemic injustices. And that’s actually the reason I went to medical school. I wanted to use the privilege, use my training, to effect change and work in solidarity with people who are marginalized.

We’re definitely just part of the equation – there are so many community groups involved in advocacy and doing the groundwork that leads to change. As physicians we can bring an evidence-based, health-care informed lens to broader political issues that impact health.

You’ve recently spoken out about immigration detention centres — how people are being transferred to prisons, ostensibly to get health care, and how children are being detained. How did you find out about these issues?

When I was doing my residency at the University of Toronto I was involved in a research project in which I interviewed adults being held in the Toronto Immigration Detention Centre out in Rexdale. It was unbelievable to see and hear about the conditions, and the despair of these people, who were detained for administrative reasons.

Because they didn’t have proper documentation, or had overstayed their temporary work visas they were thrown into what is essentially a jail. I interviewed adults, and my colleague Rachel Kronick focused on children in detention – what many people don’t know is that several hundred kids are held in detention every year. We are both psychiatrists, and the mental health impacts of this indefinite detention are shocking. Being in detention, even for a short while, can have a huge impact on mental health — anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder are common.

More recently we’ve found out from community and legal groups about the transfer of detainees to provincial jails — so if you’re in a detention centre and become suicidal, or have severe mental illness, or you get cancer, you are sent to jail. And it’s come out that there have been deaths among immigration detainees – 15 that we know of since 2000, and eight of them in provincial jails, including several suicides. As health care providers — and as human beings, frankly — we’re extremely concerned.

Do you feel like physician and advocate make for a natural combination, or do you feel tension between those two roles?

This is something I think about a lot. Some people see advocacy as something separate from their work as a physician. But I think that advocacy work is integral to my role as a doctor. It’s what brought me into medicine, and it’s what inspires me.

Do you think physicians are well placed to be advocates? Because you see some of the most vulnerable in your practice?

I would say yes we are. As clinicians we see the on-the-ground lack of access. We can see how things like homelessness, poverty, racism, lack of immigration status, and other systemic injustices negatively impact the health of our patients. So we can play an important role as allies in the fight for social justice.

For example, I’m also involved in a group called Health Providers Against Poverty, which focuses on the detrimental impact of poverty on health. This is something I see daily in my clinical work with people experiencing homelessness.

What are your next steps in terms of advocacy?

We’re going to keep advocating against these transfers to prisons, and also against keeping people, including children, in indefinite detention. In addition, healthcare providers have also been calling for access to health care more generally for all people living in Ontario. There are around 500,000 people across Canada who don’t have access to health insurance coverage because of their immigration status. We’ve argued that healthcare should be tied to clinical need, not to immigration status.

In fact, on June 28, we’re launching a campaign called OHIP For All, starting with a demonstration in front of the Ministry of Health at 900 Bay Street at noon. As physicians, we believe that everyone living in Ontario should have the care that they need.

(Pictured below: Drs Michaela Beder and Ritika Goel)

(Visit Flickr to see the original of the photo used at top)