Post-nationalism re-considered: a case study of the ‘No One Is Illegal’ movement in Canada

Abstract

Studies of post-nationalism have declined considerably among citizenship scholars in recent decades, and have been largely ignored by social movement scholars in favour of more trans-national approaches. Using a case analysis of a migrant rights movement in Canada as evidence of a ‘post-national ethics in practice’, in this article I argue for a re-consideration of the usefulness of post-nationalism within current scholarship on precarious immigration status. Taking into account both the limitations and opportunities afforded by a post-national ethical framework, I examine how the movement uses a human rights framing in distinct ways to mobilize constituents, garner mainstream media attention, and effect changes to policy at the national and local level. My findings suggest that the use of human rights frames for these movements offers both risks and rewards; however, the benefits may outweigh the risks in cases in which the quality of exposure within mainstream narratives is enough to disrupt, even if momentarily, the pervasiveness of normative nationalism, opening up new spaces for reconfiguring citizenship at the local level.

Keywords::

• post-nationalism
• citizenship
• social movements
• immigration status

Acknowledgements

I gratefully acknowledge comments from Anna C. Korteweg, Judith Taylor, Leah Bassel, and three anonymous reviewers on a previous draft. An earlier version of this article was presented at the annual Canadian Sociological Association conference. This research was supported by funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC).

Notes

^1. DADT prevents city workers from asking for residents' immigration status (‘Don't Ask’) when providing access to essential services, and also prevents city workers from reporting information about immigration status to federal authorities (‘Don't Tell’).

^2. I have identified these scholars as adopting a normative post-national ethics in their work, even in cases in which the specific terms they use might vary, e.g. global, cosmopolitan, post-Westphalian, or urban citizenship.

^3. Bill C-86 was introduced by the conservative government in 1992 and makes the possession of identity documents a condition of granting asylum to Convention refugees seeking landing from within Canada. Prior to this amendment, refugees seeking landing from within Canada were exempted from all provisions of the Immigration Act including the requirement contained under Regulation 14(1) for a valid and subsisting passport, identity, or travel document. Under Bill C-86, refugees arriving at the border without identity documents have a greater burden of proving they are Convention refugees and, if granted asylum, do not have the same rights as other refugees to apply for permanent resident status, which, as critics of the Bill point out, leaves them in ‘legal limbo’ (Razack 2000). Under pressure from advocates, the liberal government in 1997 created the Undocumented Convention Refugee in Canada Class, which allows refugees from specific countries (listed under Schedule XII of the Immigration Regulations) to be landed without identity documents. However, only Somalia and Afghanistan are listed to date, and the provision also prevents these refugees from applying for permanent residence status for up to 5 years. Razack points out, however, that although a 5-year waiting period is preferable to permanent legal limbo, this legislation still retrenches the notion of being undocumented as being socially suspect and less deserving of rights (2000, p. 185).

^4. Although the empirical analysis presented in this article is limited to the discursive framing process, it is informed by a growing body of research on the strategic tactics and social practices adopted by NOII and other emerging migrant rights groups (Sharma 2003, Wright 2003, Shantz 2004, McDonald 2007, Mishra and Kamal 2007, Racine et al.2008, Basok 2009, Goldring et al.2009, De Genova 2010, Fortier 2010, Nyers 2010). Two tactics in particular are relevant to the case analysis provided in this article. First, Shantz (2004) describes how NOII uses a ‘direct action casework’ methodology to address anti-deportation cases, where mobilizations go directly to ‘sites of injustice’ normally rendered invisible in public consciousness, such as immigrant detention centres and airports where deportations are taking place. A second tactic involves the re-configuring of cities or municipal services as ‘safety zones’ or ‘sanctuary cities’ – a strategy that has seen moderate success in the USA, and has been described as a form of ‘regularization from below’ (McDonald 2007, Mishra and Kamal 2007, Basok 2009, Fortier 2010). NOII Toronto's push for a DADT policy at the TDSB can be viewed in line with this tactic.

^5. My intention here is not to suggest a direct causal argument, since the many factors that influence reception are beyond the scope of the frame analysis used in this article.

^6. Scholars and activists have already acknowledged some limitations with DADT as a strategy, including its limited take-up to date, the challenges of its enforcement, and its inability to fully circumvent the need for recognition and regularization by the state for non-status residents (McDonald 2007, Goldring et al.2009, NOII 2010).