Immigration, Civil Liberties, and National/Homeland Security
Immigration, Civil Liberties, and National/Homeland Security
复制标题
移民、公民自由和国家/国土安全
DOI：
10.1177/002070200506000206
复制
发表时间：
2005
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Edna Keeble
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Edna Keeble
9/11之后，加拿大和美国的自由-安全难题，和大多数自由民主国家一样，再次成为政治生活的前沿。随着反恐立法的迅速通过，两国都允许政府加强监视和拘留权力，以挫败各自国内潜在的恐怖分子。通过“预防性逮捕”和“偷窥”等条款，行政自由裁量权基本上优先于司法审查。9/11之后的反恐，就像第二次世界大战后的反共一样，加倍了警察对公民的影响，已经成为一项国内事务。这并不是说这不是双边事务。加拿大迅速通过了反恐怖主义立法，不仅是为了逮捕和起诉国内的恐怖分子，也是为了减轻美国人对加拿大北部边境成为恐怖分子不设防、漏洞多端的屏障的担忧。2003年，加拿大近86%的出口产品销往美国，相当于加拿大国内生产总值（GDP）的近27%，任何“堡垒美国”的表象都将使加拿大付出巨大的经济代价。2001年12月12日在渥太华签署的《智能边境宣言和行动计划》，旨在协调加拿大对开放边境的优先考虑与美国对安全的优先考虑。“货物和人员的安全流动”，同时“安全的基础设施”和更好的“协调和信息共享”，已成为“911”后世界边境合作的原则。对于加拿大的一些团体来说，比如加拿大首席执行官委员会（CCCE），这些措施相当于边境管理中的一种“全面渐进主义”，根本不足以确保不间断地进入美国市场。事实上，CCCE正在讨论重塑两国之间的边界，加强信息共享。这将使双方都能成功地进行风险管理，并朝着对前往北美的入境点（而不是加拿大-美国边境）的旅客进行共同筛查的方向发展1999年12月，住在蒙特利尔的阿尔及利亚避难者艾哈迈德•雷萨姆（Ahmed Ressam）在从不列颠哥伦比亚省（British Columbia）过境前往华盛顿时被美国官员抓获，当时他身上带着一箱炸药，据称是要炸毁洛杉矶机场。考虑到雷萨姆的幽灵，如果要保持边境开放，加拿大对恐怖分子软弱的观念就必须消除。对于加拿大的其他团体，如加拿大人理事会（Council of Canadians）和加拿大劳工大会（Canadian Labour Congress）来说，911后世界的边境合作已经走得太远了，事实证明，信息共享对加拿大公民来说是危险的。他们认为，2002年9月，叙利亚裔加拿大公民马赫·阿拉尔（Maher Arar）在返回加拿大途中在纽约中途停留时遭到拘留、驱逐和酷刑，必须在综合边境措施、信息共享和制度安排的背景下加以考虑，这些措施（可能）迫使加拿大官员向美国当局提供有关阿拉尔与恐怖主义联系的信息（后来证明是虚假信息）这些组织指出，边境合作的增加给两国协调政策带来了更大的压力，从而削弱了加拿大自己决定问题的能力。雷格·惠特克称这两种立场为第一种，要求与美国进一步融合，从而支持美国的外交政策；二是要求降低一体化程度，引发对双边关系中“加拿大制造”的进一步安全合作的质疑。．．．
INTRODUCTIONIn the wake of 9/11, the liberty-security conundrum in Canada and the United States, as in most liberal democratic states, has once again come to the forefront of political life. With the quick passage of antiterrorist legislation,1 both countries have allowed for increased governmental surveillance and detention powers to thwart potential terrorists within their respective states. By having provisions such as "preventive arrest" and "sneak and peek," executive discretion has essentially taken precedence over judicial review. Reminiscent of the early Cold War years when the communist threat was perceived as emanating not only from the Soviet Union but also from subversives within, both countries have instituted measures that ultimately violate individual freedoms, from the right to privacy to the right to due process, in the name of national security. Redoubling the impact of policing on citizens, antiterrorism in the wake of 9/11, just like anticommunism in the immediate post-World War II years, has become a domestic affair.This does not mean to say that it is also not a bilateral affair. Canada quickly passed its antiterrorist legislation not only to arrest and prosecute terrorists at home, but also to allay American fears about their northern border being an unguarded, porous barrier to terrorists. With nearly 86 percent of Canadian exports going to the United States in 2003, amounting to almost 27 percent of Canada's gross domestic product (GDP), any semblance of "fortress America" would come at a great economic cost to Canada. The smart border declaration and action plan, signed in Ottawa on 12 December 2001, was negotiated to reconcile the Canadian priority for open borders with the American priority for security. The "secure flow of goods and people," and at the same time a "secure infrastructure" and better "coordination and information sharing," have become the principles governing border cooperation in the post-g/11 world. For some groups in Canada, like the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE), these measures, amounting to a sort of "comprehensive incrementalism" in border management simply do not go far enough to ensure uninterrupted access to American markets. Indeed, the CCCE talks about reinventing the border between the two countries and strengthening information-sharing. This will allow for successful risk management on both sides and the movement towards a common screening of travelers directed to entry points to North America as opposed to the Canadian-American border.2 Given the spectre of Ahmed Ressam, an asylee from Algeria living in Montreal who was captured by US officials with a trunk-load of explosive material as he crossed from British Columbia to Washington in December 1999, allegedly to blow up the Los Angeles airport, the notion of Canada being soft on terrorists needs to be eradicated if the border is to remain open.For other groups in Canada, like the Council of Canadians and the Canadian Labour Congress, border cooperation in the post-g/11 world has gone too far and information-sharing has proved dangerous for Canadian citizens. They argue that the detainment, deportation, and torture of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen of Syrian descent, on a stopover in New York as he was returning to Canada in September 2002, must be considered in the context of the kinds of integrated border measures, information-sharing, and institutional arrangements that (may) have compelled Canadian officials to pass on to American authorities their information (and, as it turned out, false information) about Arar's connection to terrorism.3 These groups point out that increased border cooperation generates greater pressure to harmonize policies between the two countries, thus undermining Canada's ability to decide issues on its own. Reg Whitaker calls these two positionsthe first, a demand for greater integration with the United States, leading to support for American foreign policies; and the second, a demand for lesser integration, leading to the questioning of further security cooperation"made in Canada" debates about the bilateral relationship. …