How Did 9/11 Affect Canada

In Adelman’s Canadian Borders and Immigration Post 9/11 and Hugo’s Australia Immigration Policy: The Significance of the Events of September 11, both authors explore the effects of 9/11 on the Canadian immigration and refugee policy and on the Australian asylum seeker policy respectively. To arrive at their findings, both authors use media coverage, public opinion, and examination of post 9/11 impacts on the policies of both states. Additionally, Adelman uses new legislations that Canada adopted after the attacks while Hugo uses the justification of the Australian government for their change in policy. Attempting to reason states’ actual purpose for introducing controversial immigration policies is problematic. Adelman and Hugo’s method of analysis and hurried conclusions show that the dilemma that arises in explaining immigration trends, including policies.

Adelman and Hugo maintain that both Canada and Australia had already correlated refugees and asylum seekers with security issues before the events of 9/11 (Adelman 22; Hugo 40) .

It was the event that strengthened both constituents and politicians’ perception of outsiders as threats. Additionally, the media played into the exagerration. Both articles showed that public opinion changed to reflect this fear of immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers in both countries. For example, two-thirds of Canadians and three-quarters of Australians supported the idea of stronger control of borders to deter terrorists from entering (Adelman 15; Hugo 37). Thomas Faist argues that this inclination to tighten up borders due to the perception of threat of migrants is “inconclusive” (Faist 10). This excuse is used to circumvent the “stereotypes about cultural fears and clashes” (Faist 8) citizens have of outsiders. Although the policies of both states were critizied by people, including lawyers and organizations, it is key to note that enough people supported and even elected representatives that introduced and ratified such

policies.
Between the 70s and 90s, major politcal parties in Australia welcomed the non-discriminatory immigration policy and multiculturalism (Castles et al. 167). However, when the Liberal Party of Australia, in power post 9/11, heigthened the issue of asylum seekers and the war against terrorism to win the election in 2001 (Hugo 39). In contrast, although Canada passed numerous bills in 2001 that reflect its stance against immigrants and refugees, it currently has an expansive immigration policy that admits about 1% of its total population each year (Castles et al. 134).
Both Adelman and Hugo conclude their articles by suggesting that only time will solidify the view of immigration in both countries. It is clear that both articles were written in 2002, only a short period after 9/11, which makes it difficult to see the full scope and impacts of the immigration policies discussed. However, their hurried and inconclusive ending lessens the impact of any argument they offered, especially with Adelman. Adelman’s numerous comparisons of Canada’s policy with the US may have been his use of international relational analysis, but it was ineffective and seemed as a way to lessen Canada’s stance against immigrants and refugees ( Adelman 26). Adelman’s strengths are his inclusion of how the 9/11 acts caused more disturbances in the economic and trade sector of Canada than the general fear of terrorism, itself and his justification of why Canada chose specific countries whose citizens needed visa requirements. Hugo’s strengths include his demonstration how populist parties can use fear of terrorism to win elections and his portrayal of the government’s changed processing of asylum seekers arriving in boats. My main criticism of both papers is how little quantative data they offered, particularly with refugees and asylees both states admitted. This may have been due to the fact that they had little data, but then they could have waited to gain more data before writing the articles. Nevertheless, I wonder how both authors would approach the topic if they were to write an updated version, especially with Justin Trudeau welcoming stance on immigration.