We Are Jose Handbook

8/12/2019 We Are Jose Handbook

1/57


2/57

Handbook authored by:Michele Donne

Madeline Murray

Stephany Codd Anna Barbosa

April 2014


3/57

And that is why I swore never to be silent whenever and

wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We

must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the

victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.

Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered,

when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and

sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men or women are

persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that

place must at that moment become the centre of the universe .

Elie Wiesel


4/57

Introduction

This handbook aims to provide you with all the information needed tounderstand the case of Jos Figueroa and to equip you to act in order to fight for justice in his case, and the cases of many others like him. Section 1 introduces youto who Jos is and tells you more about his story. The next section focuses onwhen the events in Joss case occurred by providing a timeline of importantevents. Section 3 looks atwhat concepts and terms are involved in his case, andgives brief descriptions of each. Section 4 analyzeswhy this situation is takingplace, paying attention to the current immigration and refugee legislation inCanada. Lastly, Section 5 provides you with ideas abouthow to get involved in thefight for immigrant and refugee rights in Canada.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section One: Who ............................................................................ 1

Section Two: When ......................................................................... 5

Section Three: What ....................................................................... 7

Section Four: Why ........................................................................ 14The Securitization of Migration ............................................................................. 14

How is it produced? ............................................................................................. 15 Why is it produced? .......................................... ............................................... .... 17

The Anti-Terrorism Act & The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act........ 20

Definition of Terrorism........................................................................................ 22 Definition of Membership in a Terrorist Organization.................................... 25 Discretionary and Arbitrary Decision-Making ............................................ .... 27

Problems, Contradictions and Implications: the Case Of Jos Figueroa........... 30 The Case of Oscar Vigil ........................................................................................ 34 Other Issues in the Legal System....................................................................... 35

Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................. ........................... 37

Section Five: How......................................................................... 40 What is the We Are Jos movement? ........................................ ............................ 40 Why is the We Are Jos Movement important? .............................................. .... 41 How you can get involved ....................................................................................... 43 Sample Letters ............................................... ............................................... ........... 45

References:................................................................................... 49


5/57

"

Section One: Who

This section will introduce you to Jos Figueroa and tell his story.1

Meet Jos Figueroa. Has has been living in Canada for over 16 years. A

Salvadoran-Canadian, he lives in Langley, B.C., with his wife and three Canadian-

born children, the eldest of whom has been diagnosed with Autism. He is a

contributing member of society and has strong ties to his community in Langley.

Despite all of this, Jos is facing deportation from Canada. Why? This is his story.

" All facts about Joss history and his current case that are uncited within the text of the handbookhave been compiled from personal communication with Jos and official publications of theWe Are Jos campaign. These have been left uncited, because it is the stated intent of this document to beused by Jos Figueroa and the We Are Jos campaign and the authors of this handbook decided itwould only clutter the text to include these citations throughout.


6/57


7/57

$

to be the government at the time, these political and armed organizations were

labeled as terrorist groups for resisting the regime. What must be understood is

that the military regime was in no way a democratically elected government, but in

fact can be seen as more of a terrorist organization that the FMLN itself, as the

military regime was responsible for 95% of the human rights abuses during the civil

war. It is important to understand how dangerous it was for someone to be a

university student during that period. In a country where freedom of speech did

not exist, thousands were murdered for speaking against the government. Jos

Figueroa joined the FMLN, knowing the dangers of this affiliation, because he felt

strongly about acting to protect human rights and dignity.

He joined the group in the late 1980s when the civil war was occurring in El

Salvador. He stood alongside other students for what was their vision of a fair

country; one that was not controlled by a government that killed whoever dared tospeak out against them. He envisioned a country where people had the right to

vote and freely speak their minds. Jos Figueroa was never seeking to create terror

or fear in El Salvador. He was fighting for justice and freedom, the same things he

sought when he and his wife sought refuge in Canada, after being targeted for

their connections with the FMLN. Fearing for their lives, they made the brave

decision to leave their country.

Jos and his wife came to Canada in 1997, after realizing that even if the

military government was no longer in power; their lives were still in danger. Many


8/57

%

individuals with ties to the FMLN were being targeted and threatened. Jos

Figueroa believed that Canada was a country where human rights were upheld and

respected. He moved here to start a family with his wife. He never tried to cover up

his past as FMLN student leader. In fact, he disclosed this information upon entry

into Canada, as the persecution he was facing as a former FMLN member was the

main reason that he sought asylum as a refugee. He believed that Canada would

support his honesty, because to him, it was not a matter of only fearing for his life,

but about the right of living in a just, fair, and democratic country.

Yet, in 2009 when he requested permanent residency, his claim was denied.

Jos was informed that he was inadmissible to stay in Canada because of his

former ties to the FMLN. Although the Canadian Border Services Agency had

always known about his ties to the FMLN, Jos was told that his non-violent

affiliation with the FMLN almost 30 years ago now constituted membership in aterrorist organization. He was given a deportation order and was told to sign the

necessary travel documents and prepare to leave his family behind to return to El

Salvador.

Fearing for his life and his familys safety, he decided to seek sanctuary in a

local church. Jos has remained in sanctuary as he fights to have his deportation

order reversed. It has been a long and arduous fight for justice. Jos was denied his

request to be exempt from deportation based on humanitarian and compassionate

grounds, and has now challenged this decision and awaits a judicial review,


9/57

&

scheduled for May 26th, 2014. Jos is not a terrorist. He is an innocent man, a loving

father, and a contributing member of Canadian society. The Canadian government

is demanding that he be forcefully divorced from his wife and abandon his

children. TheWe Are Jos movement seeks to bring light to his plight and demand

that justice be done for Jos, and for the hundreds of other migrants who are

unfairly represented as terrorists under the current immigration legislation.

Section Two: When

Timeline of Important Events :

October 15 th , 1979: A coup dtat was carried out by the military regime, deposing

President Carlos Humberto Romero. This marks the beginning of the Military

Regime in El Salvador.

March 1980: Archbishop scar Romero, who spoke out against the military

regime, is assassinated by a member of a military-backed death squad while giving

a mass.

October 10 th , 1980: FMLN is formed as a coalition of five guerrilla groups who

opposed and resisted the Dictatorial Regime.

January 1992: The Civil War ends and the FMLN is recognized as a Representative

Political Party in El Salvador.

1997: Jos Figueroa and his wife immigrate to Canada claiming refugee status.

May 2000: Canadian government denies Joss refugee claim.

2002: Jos makes an application to stay in Canada as a resident on Humanitarian &

Compassionate grounds based on the fact that he has Canadian-born children, one

of whom is Autistic and requires ongoing educational support.

2004: The Minister approves this application in principle.

2009: Jos applies for Permanent Residency in Canada.


10/57

'

January 2009: Mauricio Funes, a member of the FMLN political party, is

democratically elected as president of El Salvador. Canadian Prime-Minister,

Stephen Harper, attends Funes ceremony to take the presidential office in San

Salvador.

May 2010: Jos receives a deportation order, informing him that he is not eligible

for permanent residency because he has been found inadmissible to Canada based

on his past membership in a terrorist organization.

October 2010: Jos applies for an exemption that would allow him to stay in

Canada, based on humanitarian and compassionate considerations and the fact

that he is not a threat to the safety of Canada.

January 2011: The We Are Jos campaign is launched in order to put pressure on

the Canadian government to reverse the deportation order.

May 2013: Joss Humanitarian and Compassionate application is denied and the

process to deport Jos Figueroa is put into motion. The H&C application for Joss

wife, Ivania, is accepted.

October 2013: Fearing for his life and the security of his family, Jos claims

sanctuary at Walnut Grove Lutheran Church in Langley, B.C.

October 19 th , 2013: We Are Jos launches a number of solidarity campaigns across

Canada. Hundreds come out to rally in support of Jos, from B.C. to Montreal.

October 30 th , 2013: A motion to stay the deportation order for three months is

granted.

January 16 th , 2014: A judicial review of the decision to deny Joss Humanitarian

and Compassionate application was scheduled to occur on this day, but due to

clerical errors and other bureaucratic delays, the judicial review in the Federal Court

is delayed indefinitely.

May 26 th , 2014: The judicial review to evaluate whether the decision to deny

Joss H&C application is a violation of constitutional and Charter rights has been

rescheduled to take place on this day.


11/57

(

Section Three: What

Many acronyms and new terms will be used in this handbook. To

accommodate to those who are new to these terms as well as those

experienced in them, a list of definitions and their importance in the

context of Joss case is provided in this section.

Asylum Seeker : According to the UNHCR (2014) an asylum-seeker is someone who

says he or she is a refugee, but whose claim has not yet been definitively evaluated.

Usually the asylum seeker then goes through an administrative and legal process

to decide who qualifies for international protection. This process is supposed to be

rapid, but currently the Canadian system has high rates of backlogs from when Bill

C-31 came into effect (CCR, 2013). Jos and his wife came to Canada in 1997, while

filing a refugee claim they defined themselves as refugees. While their claim was

being processed, they were considered asylum seekers.

Bill C-31: In 2012, this bill came into effect and changed the way the Immigration

and Refugee Protection Act worked. According to the CCR (2013), these changes

have made it more difficult for non-citizens to apply for refugee status. Under the

Government of Canada (2013), this legislation: Brings further reforms to the asylum system, Adds measures to address human smuggling, and Adds the requirement to include biometric data as part of a temporary

resident visa, work permit, and study permit application.

Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA): The CBSA oversees all activity coming

across the border, including peoples. They have first-hand experience with

refugees and asylum seekers. According to the CBSA, a reason for peoples to not

be accepted or remain in Canada is, being part of organized criminality. It was a

CBSA officer who sent the initial report to the Minister of Public Safety, that


12/57

)

initiated the process of Jos being deemed inadmissible because of being affiliated

with a terrorist organization. TheWe Are JosCampaign works hard to make sure

these border agents are properly educated about the historical and political

context of origin countries.

Canadian Immigration and Refugee Protection Act of 2002 : Under the

Canadian Immigration and Refugee Protection Act of 2002, refugees and

immigrants are inadmissible to Canada on security grounds for engaging in

terrorism or being a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds

to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in terrorism (IRPA, 29-30). Jos has

been found inadmissible to Canada based on the provisions of this piece of

legislation.

Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR): The CCRs mission statement (2014): The

Canadian Council for Refugees is a national non-profit umbrella organization

committed to the rights and protection of refugees and other vulnerable migrants

in Canada and around the world and to the settlement of refugees and immigrants

in Canada. Made-up of citizens, non-citizens and academics, the CCR works hard

to combine all their strengths to fight and together create a universal voice in

support of the just treatment of refugees and non-citizens in Canada.

Deportation: Is the act of the Canadian Government and CBSA removing non-

citizens from within the Canadian borders to their home country. If an application

for refugee status or Permanent Residence is declined, migrants can be forcefully

removed. In Joss case, they have deemed him inadmissible because of terrorist

associations and are trying to remove him and send him back to El Salvador.

Inadmissibility: The Government of Canada (2013) has stated some broad reasons

some people are not allowed to come into or remain in Canada: You are a security risk,


13/57


14/57

"+

Refugee: Is a person who has been displaced or have left their countries because

of the threat or discrimination they feel in the origin country. Jos first applied for

refugee status in 1997.

Sanctuary: Is a place someone can find refuge or safety, in times of trouble. It has

usually been identified as either a church or another holy place. In Canada,

Sanctuary is often offered as a last resort, for those individuals who the church

believes are at a risk of serious harm if they were to return to their home country.

Not all churches are required to agree or participate in proving sanctuary (Antelo,

2013). Jos is currently living in sanctuary.

Terrorism: This term is drawn from Bill C-36, or Canadas Anti-Terrorism Act.

According to this, terrorism can be defined as an act or omission committed

inside or outside Canada for political, religious or ideological purpose or cause with

an intention to either: intimidate the public with regard to security, including its

economic security, or to compel a person, government or national or international

organization to do or refrain from doing any act, and with an intent to: cause death

or serious bodily harm, endanger life, cause a serious risk to the health or safety of

the public OR cause serious interference with an essential service, facility or

system (Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, 2001, 3)

The Canadian Charter of Rights , section 15 Equality Rights: Every individual is

equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal

benefit under the law without discrimination and, in particular, without

discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or

mental or physical disability.

It recognizes that every individual is equal before and under the law... therefore

everyone including immigrants and refugees are entitled to the same rights.

(The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 2013, 15).


15/57

""

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights :

Article 13

(1) Everyone has the right for freedom of movement and residence

within the borders of each state.

Article 15

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the

right to change his nationality (The Universal Declaration of Human

Rights, 2014, 13,15).

Similar Cases to Joss

Joss case of being deemed inadmissible on the charge of terrorism is not

an isolated case, nor is it the first or last of its kind. The Canadian Government

continues to use this charge against non-citizen individuals to continue their

restrictive and oppressive immigration measures. It is important to look at cases

similar to Joss in order to understand the continued threat the Canadian

Government puts on individuals and the ease at which these people can be labeled

a terrorist and deemed deportable. In order to defend themselves against

deportation, they must wait months or even years to share their story and gain the

respect of authorities, just to be heard as political beings. During these moments

many are forced to take sanctuary in churches or safe havens.

Those non-citizens who cannot achieve sanctuary are often times held in

immigration detention centers until they are deported. Those held in detention

centres with lower-profiles often wait long periods of time before given the right to

be informed of the status of their case (Pratt, 2005). One case that directly relates to


16/57

"#

the FMLN was that of Eugenio Chicas, who was a Salvadoran judge and former

FMLN member invited to a conference in Ottawa. He was detained at the Canadian

border for 24 hours because of his affiliation with the FMLN Government. Due to

the high profile nature of his case, within 24 hours the border officials realized the

error they had made and apologized to Judge Chicas. His case shows the ease at

which mistakes can be made due to misinformation and the large discretionary

power given to border officials. Chicas membership with the FMLN was waived by

the Canadian Government, but yet there has still been no steps forward in Joss

case. This case has set precedent for the waiving of ones membership with the

FMLN. If one individuals membership with the can be waived, it needs to be done

for Jos as well, yet he is still treated with hostility and disrespect.

Another similar case to Joss is that of Muhsen Agraira, a Libyan who is

being deemed deportable because of his connections with the organization thathas been deemed a terrorist organization by Citizenship and Immigration Canada,

the Libyan National Salvation Front (LNSF). Muhsen has been in Canada since

1997, and was deemed inadmissible on security grounds in 2002. He then promptly

applied for ministerial relief. According to the court, in this case they followed the

guidelines set out by the CIC and CBSA and he was still deemed inadmissible. His

application for ministerial relief was then rejected in 2009 (Supreme Court of

Canada, 2013). Agraia launched a judicial review of this decision, which was passed

initially but then rescinded by the minister. Muhsen again made an appeal in 2013,


17/57

"$

to the Supreme Court of Canada, which was rejected on national security grounds.

The LNSF is now the National Front Party (NFP) and they are in opposition to

the Gaddafi regime. They are a progressive liberal party that stands for democracy.

Muhsen and Jos have both been deemed inadmissible to Canada because of their

past affiliations with organizations that are now government parties. In the next

section, the reasons why Jos and many others like him are being considered

inadmissible to Canada will be discussed.


18/57

"%

Section Four: Why

This section will explore the whys behind Jos Figueroas case. To dothis, three questions will be answered:

1. What is meant by the securitization of migration and how is thisconnected to Joss case?

2. What laws govern immigration in Canada and why is Jos consideredinadmissible under this legislation?

3. What problems and contradictions does Joss case shed light on and what are the implications for immigrants and refugee rights in Canada?

The Securitization of Migration

In order to fully understand Joss plight, we must first understand the

context in which Joss case is playing out. In order to explore why Jos is at risk of

being deported, the changing nature of immigration policy in Canada, the

problematic nature of the existing legislation, and the connections that these

issues have with the case of Jos Figueroa will be discussed. The history of

immigration policy in Canada has always included mechanisms to distinguishbetween desired and undesired classes of migrants (Crocker et al., 2007). In the

past, immigration policy and discourse have been used to separate those

immigrants who are believed to be able to bolster the Canadian economy from

those immigrants who are seen as threats to the cultural, economic and political

vitality of Canada (Macklin, 2001). In recent years, there has been a shift towards

greater securitization of migration. This means that the threat immigrants are seen

as embodying has shifted from taking away jobs to taking away lives (Crocker et al.,


19/57

"&

2007). As migration becomes increasingly securitized, immigrants are more often

being represented as a threat to the security of Canada.

Kim Rygiel, in her award-winning bookGlobalizing Citizenship , explains that

by looking at migration through a national security lens, certain bodies are

perceived as threatening, disruptive, and risky and therefore in need of being

securitized, regulated and controlled (2010, 5). Using and leveraging this

perceived threat as justification, Canadian immigration policy has become a

mechanism of exclusion that applies tighter immigration controls and citizenship

policies preemptively and selectively to certain groups of migrants (Aiken, 2001).

Jos represents just one of these migrants who get caught up in the injustices of

the securitized, strict and selective immigration policy in Canada. These individuals

are pushed out of the boundaries of citizenship or even the physical boundaries of

the Canadian nation, while their calls for justice are ignored. Prior to analyzing theparticulars of Canadian immigration policy and law, how and why the securitization

of migration has emerged will be explored.

How is it produced?

As migrants mobility has become increasingly constricted, the ease andspeed at which powerful words and discourses travel across and between borders

has expanded. The words risk and security began to enter into the discourses

surrounding migration even before the events of September 11, 2001, but it wasnt


20/57

"'

until after these events that the securitization of migration transformed the

migration landscape (Ibrahim, 2005). The positioning of migrants as a dangerous

security threat to nations in the global North can be seen as the outcome of the

powerful act of the production of truth via the construction and functioning of a

discourse (Foucault, 1980). Michel Foucault expands on this notion by asserting

that the creation of knowledge and truth through a discourse is an exercise of

power, inasmuch as it is this knowledge and truth that then informs, produces,

and is subsequently reaffirmed through government policies and laws (1980, 94).

Indeed, in the case of the securitization of migration, it is the exercising of

power by the Canadian government, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the

Canadian Border Services Agency, and national media that has resulted in the

discourse that has transformed migrants from being portrayed as potential voting

citizens to a threatening and dangerous other (Rygiel, 2010). By locatingterrorism almost exclusively in the legislation regarding immigration, these

agencies have institutionalized in the law the migrant-as-a-threat discourse

(Macklin, 2001). This rapid reconfiguration of the lines of inclusion and exclusion

aligns with the common feature of neoliberal ideology that creates discourses that

transform those who were once seen as victims, into victimizers, individualizing

blame rather than understanding the deeply flawed nature of contemporary

economic and political systems and structures (Abu-Laban, 1998).


21/57

"(

Why is it produced?

Maggie Ibrahim asserts that the migrant-as-a-threat discourse is an

extremely powerful one, that undermines migrants civil and human rights while

privileging the rights of Canadian citizens, (re)actualizes and reifies a form of New

Racism which uses cultural difference as a criterion for exclusion, and allows

global powers to retain control over the existing social and productive relations

that make up the capitalist world order (2005, 165). While it is clear that migrants,

especially those journeying from countries in the global South, are at the losing

end of this discourse, it is also important to understand why it is produced and who

stands to win from the production and dissemination of this discourse.

Those who derive power from their position governing and maintaining the

working of the neoliberal-capitalist world system are greatly threatened by

migration and the movement of workers, ideas, and capital between the globalSouth and North (Ibrahim, 2005). Migration tends to blur the boundaries between

the North and the South, rendering the economic and political geography

increasingly fluid. By producing and disseminating discourses that place migrants

as security threats to the host country, thus influencing host countrys anti-

immigration policies, global powers are grasping to maintain control over the

capitalist world system by ensuring that the economic, geographic, social and

political boundaries between the core and the periphery are maintained (Hardt &

Negri, 2000, 245). Indeed, the capitalist, neoliberal world system effectively

depends on the separation and distinction between core and periphery (Ibrahim,


22/57

")

2005). Thus, those who stand to win from the securitization of migration are those

who occupy powerful and influential positions in the core of the current capitalist

world order.

Nandita Sharma and Kim Rygiel also draw links between the processes of

globalization and securitization. The liberalized, globalized economic system

requires open and fluid borders that enable the free movement of goods,

information and services across the globe (Rygiel, 2010). Contrastingly, the state-

centric system of nationhood and national security requires fixed borders and well-

defined populations (Rygiel, 2010). This paradox generates multiple tensions that

cause national governments to try to assert the sovereignty they must give up as

part of a globalized economy, by exercising strict control over who may or may not

enter their borders and call themselves citizens. In an increasingly globalized

world, nation states are attempting to uphold and justify the architecture of thesystem of national sovereign states by enforcing their rights to determine who can

enter their borders and what conditions will be imposed upon those who enter

(Sharma, 2011).

Barry Hindess proposes a useful method of understanding the contradiction

between the practice of opening borders for the movement of goods and services

while closing borders for movement of people. He states that both processes are

parts of the one regime of population control in fact, of a broadly liberal

international regime (Hindess, 2003, 24). Thus, we can see that the securitization


23/57

"*

of migration is also a method for nation states to attempt to control their

populations, in response to the erosion of their control over their economies.

Although the securitization of migration has diverse and far-ranging

implications, one impact that is central to the case of Jos Figueroa is that the

discourse of securitization privileges the security of the state and its citizens at the

expense of the human security of migrants (CCR, 2003). Human security is a

concept that places the individual, rather than the state, as the focus of security. It

focuses on the protection of individuals human rights as well as their entitlements

to a high quality of life and freedom from fear (Freitas, 2002). In order to protect

the security of Canada and Canadian citizens, Jos and many others like him must

face the conditions of tangible human insecurity (Macklin, 2001). They are being

denied the social, political and material rights of citizenship, discriminated against,

disempowered, and deported (Sharma, 2011). How can it be that our rights asCanadian citizens supersede Joss fundamental human rights to liberty and

security of person, and to freedom of opinion, expression and association?

It is clear that through the securitization lens, the principles of security and

human rights are applied selectively and mediated by citizenship, race, political

affiliation, and other markers of difference. It is an oppressive framework that

results in the control, exclusion and oppression of those who are positioned at the

intersection of various axes of oppression: class, race, gender, sexuality, religion,

etc. In the next section, we will look at how the securitization agenda is present


24/57

#+

within immigration law in Canada, and how this framework is employed in the

legislation to authorize and justify state actions against immigrants that would be

considered undemocratic, unconstitutional and unjust if performed against citizens

(Sharma, 95). In an analysis of the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Immigration and

Refugee Protection Act, pay close attention to how the law is designed not to

protect us from the enemy within our borders, but to produce this enemy within

our borders and justify their swift removal (Macklin, 2001).

The Anti-Terrorism Act & The Immigrant and Refugee

Protection Act

In the months following the tragic events of 9/11, the Canadian

government passed two pieces of legislation that were designed to give the

federal government an enhanced capacity to protect the security of Canada

(Roach, 2005). In 2001, the Anti-Terrorism Act (also known as Bill-36) was passed,

followed soon after by the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) in June

2002 (Roach, 2005). The Anti-Terrorism Act amends 10 different statutes and ratifies

2 different UN conventions on the financing of international terrorism, toughens

penalties for those suspected of committing a terrorist act, and reinstatespreventive and investigative hearings (Daniels, 2001; MacKinnon, 2013). The

naming of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is ironic, as the legislation

does more to protect citizens rights and security than to protect immigrant and


25/57

#"

refugee rights (Burman, 2006). The changes introduced in the IRPA move in two

directions. On one hand, it caters to market considerations by facilitating the easy

admission of skilled, highly educated migrants into Canada (Crocker et al., 2007).

On the other, it aligns with the security agenda by restricting the ability of other

migrants to enter Canada and broadening the grounds for excluding certain

groups of migrants entirely (Crocker et al., 2007).

To do this, the IRPA broadens the ground for criminal inadmissibility,

restricts access to rights for those who fall in more serious criminal categories and

introduces secretive security certificate procedures that will result in the

detainment and deportation of non-citizens based on very low standards of proof

(Crocker et al., 2007). In this way, the IRPA denies access to justice to those most in

need of fair and proper decisions, removes existing fair decision-making and

accountability in matters of deportation and sponsorship, removes existingprocedures that ensure a full consideration of circumstances and a proper

balancing of interests, and gives immigration officers broad powers to determine

inadmissibility (Arakelian, 2004, 63). Many of these provisions have been criticized

as being unconstitutional. The changes introduced in the IRPA significantly

increase the risk of institutionalizing religious and racial profiling, and compromise

the international reputation of Canada as a humanitarian nation (Thompson, 2013).

In the next section, we will look closer at the section of the IRPA under which Jos

Figueroa has been found inadmissible, Section 34.1


26/57

##

Definition of Terrorism

Under Section 34.1 of the IRPA, refugees and immigrants are inadmissible to

Canada on security grounds for engaging in terrorism or being a member of an

organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or

will engage in terrorism (IRPA, 29-30). Nowhere in the IRPA are the terms

terrorism, member, or reasonable grounds defined and operationalized,

instead, the IRPA draws on the definition of terrorism in Canadas Anti-Terrorism

Act (CCPA, 2001). According to Bill C-36, terrorism can be defined as an act or

omission committed inside or outside Canada for political, religious or ideological

purpose or cause with an intention to either: intimidate the public with regard to

security, including its economic security, or to compel a person, government or

national or international organization to do or refrain from doing any act, and with

an intent to: cause death or serious bodily harm, endanger life, cause a serious risk

to the health or safety of the public OR cause serious interference with an essentialservice, facility or system (CCPA, 2001, 3).

The attempt to define terrorism in a legal context is an unsuccessful one, as

any definition of terrorism will be based on a political position and situated within

a specific cultural, social and tactical context (Kaushal & Dauvergne, 2011). The

above definition has been argued to be so general and wide reaching as to be

unconstitutionally vague. The unconstitutional nature of using such an undefined

term to deport non-citizens has been argued in the Federal Court of Canada in

various cases, most notably Suresh v. Canada and Ahani v. Canada. The Supreme


27/57

#$

Court refused to find the term terrorism unconstitutionally vague. Mr. Justice

Denault, a member of the Court proceeding over the Ahani v. Canada case, stated

this about the statutory interpretation of terrorism:

In my view, since Parliament has decided not to define these terms, it is not

incumbent upon this Court to define them ... I do not share the view that

the word must be narrowly interpreted. I am rather of the view

that it must receive a broad and unrestricted interpretation I agree with

counsel for the Respondent that the word is not capable of a legal definition

that would be neutral and non-discriminatory in its application, I am still of

the opinion that the word must receive an unrestrictive interpretation. (Re

Ahani, 1998)

Considering the fact that in Joss case, the vague definition of terrorism present in

Canadian immigration law is endangering his human security and the security of

his family, this statement is unsatisfactory and unsettling. The Federal Court shouldnot be content with employing a broad and unrestricted interpretation of the term

terrorism.

A broad and unrestricted interpretation of the concept of terrorism,

combined with the extremely low standard of proof necessary to accuse non-

citizens of terrorism, could clearly capture those migrants who, like Jos, pose no

real threat to the security of Canada. It draws no clear distinction between armed

struggles against repressive regimes and violent actions aimed against civilians

(CCR, 2003, 7). Legitimate political dissent is thus often caught in this wide


28/57

#%

definition of terrorism. To illustrate the insufficiencies of this definition of terrorism,

consider this: under the IRPA, Nelson Mandela would be considered a terrorist and

would be inadmissible for entry into Canada (Arakelian, 2004). Although he is a

Nobel laureate and an honorary Canadian citizen, his membership and

involvement in the African National Congress (ANC), which sometimes resorted to

violence to resist a repressive regime, would constitute membership in a terrorist

organization (Roach, 2005). By equating violent struggles against repressive

military regimes with terrorism, Canadian immigration law blatantly disregards the

social and political realities that must be considered when working with

immigrants who are journeying from countries with diverse histories and political

circumstances.

Lastly, the expansive definition of terrorism in the IRPA treats all suspected

terrorists with the same severity, without consideration for the time that haspassed since they allegedly were involved with a terrorist organization, the years

they have since spent in Canada, the strength of their social ties, their positive

contributions to Canadian society, or the devastating impact their removal would

have on Canadian born family members (National Immigration Law Section of the

CBA, 2012). It is not acceptable that immigration law, as it currently stands, does

not include provisions that consider the importance of these factors when making

decisions about who is permitted to remain in Canada.


29/57


30/57

#'

(CCR, 2003). The concept of membership as it exists in the IRPA does not

distinguish between membership in organizations for the purpose of participating

in their violent activities and the myriad of other cultural, economic and political

reasons that an individual might become involved in a certain branch of an

organization (Bell, 2006).

As a result, in Canadian immigration law, the interpretation of membership

has at times included associates, sympathizers, supporters and fellow travelers

(Waldman, as cited in Bell, 2006, 66). This broad interpretation can put individuals

in jeopardy of being accused of terrorism simply for belonging to a certain ethnic

community or being a supporter of the political liberation of their peoples (The

Maytree Foundation, 2001). The Canadian Council for Refugees states that the use

of the concept of membership for finding applicants inadmissible runs counter to

fundamental Canadian values, namely freedom of association and the requirementthat people only be penalized for acts or omissions for which they themselves are

responsible (2003, 8). The Maytree Foundation, a leader in immigration research

and advocacy in Canada ,recommends that either the concept of membership be

more succinctly defined, or it should be completely removed as a condition for

inadmissibility in the IRPA (2001).


31/57


32/57

#)

beyond a reasonable doubt, border officials only need to have reasonable

grounds to believe that an immigrant may fall under the category of

inadmissibility in order to take action against them. CBSA officers also refer to the

official list of terrorist organizations published by the Government of Canada under

the Anti-Terrorism Act to aid in their decision-making. Even the creation of this list,

however, has been identified as a highly partisan exercise that is subject to the

shifting economic and political interests of the governing party (Crocker et al.,

2007). It is disturbing that under the current system, the power to label another

person as a terrorist is held by a small number of individuals. These individuals are

usually not elected, and therefore are not accountable to the public and are able to

make decisions in conditions of relative secrecy with little oversight (Aiken, 2011).

This use of discretionary power in immigration law and practice is closely

related to the securitization of migration. It has been noted that in a climate of fear,discretionary powers are more likely to be used, less likely to be questioned, and

most likely manifestations of discrimination (Dauvergne, 2003). Additionally, the

extent of this discretionary power also influences the lived experience of

immigrants and their perceptions and experiences of their own human security.

Due to the fact that CBSA officers and other immigration officials are given the

discretionary power under the IRPA to investigate, detain and deport immigrants,

they also are given the power to influence immigrants perceptions of how

vulnerable they are, how safe they are and how secure their family is (Burman,

2006). Immigrants perceptions and experiences of human security (or lack thereof)


33/57

#*

have serious implications not only for their future in Canada but also for their safety

and mental health while in Canada.

Once an immigrant is labeled as inadmissible into Canada, their options for

recourse are limited. One option is to begin the process for a judicial review, and

the other lies in the granting of a Ministers exemption on humanitarian and

compassionate grounds. Specifically in the case of an application for a Ministers

exemption, the fate of an immigrant is left to the Minister of Citizenship and

Immigrations discretion. Indeed, many of the other provisions in the IRPA rely

solely on the discretionary powers of the Minister (Forcese, 2006). This leaves

immigrants vulnerable to the particular predilections of particular ministers at

particular historical junctures (Sossin, as cited in Forcese, 2006, 980). This problem

is amplified by the fact that judicial reviews, which are important checks on the

discretionary power of adjudicators and judges, are hardly ever undertaken incases of immigration law (Pratt, 1999).

The lack of judicial oversight in immigration law is unsettling, especially in

light of the arbitrariness of decisions made with discretionary power (Ibrahim,

2005). Those who work in the area of refugee and immigrant rights point to the

arbitrariness of the decisions made by CBSA officers and the Minister, stating that

there have been many seemingly identical cases where one immigrant was

granted the opportunity to remain in Canada while the other was order to leave

(Burman, 2006). These decisions often have little to do with the actual security


34/57

$+

threat that an immigrant may pose to Canada, and much to do with the arbitrary

enforcement of the law. As in Joss case, decisions made about inadmissibility can

sometimes occur decades after the supposed terrorist membership occurred and

years after the immigrant has arrived in Canada (National Immigration Law Section

of the CBA, 2012). Surely there is a measure of arbitrariness involved when an

inadmissibility hearing is put into motion a decade after the immigrant arrived in

Canada and fully disclosed their membership in a certain group. There is

demonstrable inconsistency in the decision-making processes that, when taken

together with the potential influence of systemic discrimination against foreigners

and unskilled workers, supports the notion that a transparent oversight and review

process is needed (The Maytree Foundation, 2001). In the next section, the

problems, contradictions and implications of the issues of securitization and the

IRPA that are specific to Joss case will be discussed.

Problems, Contradictions and Implications: the Case Of

Jos Figueroa

The securitization of migration, the broad definitions of terrorism in Section

34.1 of the IRPA, and the corresponding potential for unchecked discretionary

power are all issues that are at play in Jos Figueroas case. Firstly, there are

numerous issues brought to light by the fact that under the IRPA, Jos is being

accused of membership in a terrorist organization. Jos supported the FMLN while


35/57

$"

in university in El Salvador, his activities going no further than joining a non-violent

student union that openly supported the FMLN. At this time, El Salvador was being

ruled by a violent, authoritarian regime that used terror to intimidate and restrain

citizens (Cardona, 2009). The military regime that was in power supported death

squads, who massacred citizens and assassinated prominent individuals who

resisted the regime, notably Archbishop Oscar Romero. The University of El

Salvador was also a notable site of violent oppression, as the faculty and students

were routinely accused of being communists, ordered to vacate the campus with

their hands on their head, and beaten if they resisted the military-backed campus

police (Cardona, 2009). According to the Commission on the Truth for El Salvador,

only 5% of the violations of human rights that took place during the civil war can

be attributed to the FMLN, the other 95% were committed by the illegitimate

military government (UN Security Council, 1993).

The definition of terrorism present in the IRPA does not account for

situations in which the ruling power in a country is involved in terrorism. In the face

of this brutal regime, Jos felt that he must take a stand and oppose this use of

violence and terror. Another important consideration is the fact that the FMLN is

not listed on Canadas list of terrorist entities. In fact, the FMLN is now the

democratically elected governing party of El Salvador with whom the Canadian

government has strong diplomatic relations. In this context, how is it that Jos is

considered a terrorist for his non-violent membership in this organization nearly 30

years ago? There are clear contradictions in the way that the Canadian government


36/57

$#

approaches the FMLN, leaving room for speculation that Joss deportation has

more to do with a discriminatory, arbitrary interpretation of the law than with

protecting the security of Canada.

The other indication of arbitrary and overly discretionary decision making in

Joss case is that Jos was fully open about his involvement in the FMLN upon

entry into Canada in 1997. He in no way tried to hide this connection, as the violent

action taken against FMLN members post-civil war was in fact the reason that he

was seeking asylum as a refugee claimant with his wife in Canada. There was no

mention of his membership in the FMLN being a problem or grounds for

inadmissibility until 2010. Thirteen years went by before this issue was ever

brought up. Did Jos suddenly become more of a danger to the security of Canada

13 years after his entry? Was he considered more of a terrorist as time went on, as

he started a family, acquired employment, and developed strong ties to hiscommunities in Canada? Surely this is not the case. The issue at hand here is that

he was not considered a threat to the security of Canada upon entry, but 13 years

later, an immigration officer decided to arbitrarily take action against him in order

to use the power that is given to them under the IRPA.

Another illustration of the arbitrary nature of the decision-making in Joss

case is that in 2004, at the same time that Jos was being questioned by a CBSA

officer about his involvement in the FMLN, the officer was also investigating

another former FMLN member, Salvador. Shortly after, Salvador was issued a


37/57

$$

deportation order, however, Jos was not. The issue of membership in the FMLN

was not pursued in Joss case for another 6 years. Why? Jos can only speculate

about why the officer decided to pursue this lead so many years later. Whether one

believes he should be considered a terrorist or not, his case exposes serious

shortcomings of the entire Canadian Border Services Agency. If he is considered a

terrorist, the CBSA fell short by letting him live in the country for 13 years before

taking any action to remove him. If he is not considered a terrorist, he is an

innocent man who is getting caught up in the unjust and overly broad definition of

terrorism in Canadian immigration legislation. Either way, his case reveals glaring

flaws in the ideologies and operations of border control agencies.

Whatever the outcome in his case, it has extremely important implications

for the other 150,000 Salvadorans currently living in Canada, many of whom were

former members of the FMLN. If Joss deportation order is not revoked, theseindividuals will have to live in constant fear that their past ties to this organization

will one day be used to eject them from their new home in Canada, with no

consideration for the years that they have spent residing in Canada, for the security

and safety of their families (some members who are Canadian born), for the

strengths of the ties they have made with their communities, or for the depth of

their contributions to the Canadian economy and culture.


38/57

$%

The Case of Oscar Vigil

One such individual is Oscar Vigil. Oscar Vigil came to Canada as a refugee in

2001, fearing for his safety after receiving numerous death threats because of his

connections with the FMLN. His connections to the FMLN did not involve any

violent activities. Both Oscar and his wife, Carolina, worked as journalists in El

Salvador. Since entering Canada in 2001, Oscar and his wife have started a family in

Canada and made valuable contributions to Canadian society. Oscar has

contributed his journalistic talent to various Spanish-language publications, as well

as serving as Executive Director of the Canadian Hispanic Congress and Co-chair of

the Toronto Working Group of the Canadian Centre for International Justice (Vigil

Campaign, 2014). Carolina has invested her time in local refugee protection

centres that offer services and shelter to refugee women and children.

Despite these valuable contributions and demonstrated commitment tohuman rights, Oscar has been deemed inadmissible to Canada and is facing

deportation. This inadmissibility decision contradicts previous CBSA assessments,

which concluded that he does not constitute a danger to Canadian society and

that he may face cruel and unusual treatment if forced to return to El Salvador and

thus should not be deported (Behrens, 2014). He applied for an exemption on the

basis of humanitarian and compassionate grounds, but was recently rejected.

Oscars case is extremely similar to Joss, and interestingly enough was also

presided over by immigration case officer Karine Roy-Tremblay (Behrens, 2014).


39/57


40/57


41/57

$(

and other inefficiencies in the judicial process. These unreasonable delays have had

extremely negative impacts on his and his familys mental and emotional health, as

Jos has been forced to prolong his absence from his family for months at a time

while he remains in sanctuary. This experience is corroborated by recent findings

that the judicial process in Canada, specifically in B.C., moves too slowly and is

subject to unreasonable delays (SPARC BC, 2005). While these delays may simply be

the result of errors or inefficiencies, there is also reason to believe that these errors

point to a lack of transparency within the system. It is possible that clerical errors or

bureaucratic delays are employed to conceal the fact that the court does not yet

have sufficient evidence with which to deny Joss claims. The numerous delays

may be simply a method of buying time to try to find a sufficient reason to enforce

the deportation order before Joss case must be resolved in court.

Conclusion and Recommendations

"Power always has to be kept in check; power exercised in secret, especially under

the cloak of national security is doubly dangerous."

William Proxmire (as cited in Forcese, 2006, 964)

The case of Jos Figueroa illustrates the validity of this statement by former

US Senator William Proxmire. Under the justification of national security, the

Canadian government is attempting to deport a man who came to this country


42/57

$)

seeking asylum. Jos faces a reality where he is forcefully divorced from his family

and unable to provide for the needs of his children. An investigation into thewhy s

behind Joss case reveals that the Canadian immigration policy has shifted to

reflect the growing securitization of migration, a shift that tends to undermine

fundamental human security while privileging the vague concept of state security.

This analysis revealed that the current immigration law does not protect us from

external enemies, but rather produces these enemies within our borders,

specifically by relying on overly broad and unrestricted definitions of terrorism and

membership in a terrorist organization.

The use of these broad concepts as the framework for deciding who is

permitted to stay in Canada leaves room for an unsettling amount of discretionary

power in the decision making process, producing new forms and methods of

discrimination and creating a climate of fear among immigrant communities(Crocker et al., 2007). Many innocent people are thus found inadmissible to Canada,

and are then forced to navigate a judicial system that is filled with barriers which

prevent immigrants from obtaining just outcomes in their cases. As a result, many

of Canadas most vulnerable inhabitants, including Jos, are subject to deportation

and other decisions regarding their future in Canada that endanger their security.

We must not forget that there can be no security without democracy (Aiken,

2001). The current system that is put in place to protect the security of Canada is

fundamentally undemocratic and unjust. What is needed to rectify this grave


43/57

$*

situation is more thoughtful, nuanced and context-specific standards about who is

a terrorist, for what acts, and in which circumstances (Kaushal & Dauvergne, 2011,

91). There must be greater consistency and accountability of immigration

decision-making to ensure fairness and to restore public confidence in the

legitimacy of the system (Pratt, 1999, 211). Furthermore, there is a need for more

effective, equitable and accessible means for migrants to appeal or contest the

decisions made regarding their case. Specifically, immigrants and refugees should

be provided with state-funded and knowledgeable legal aid, as well as access to

information about the inadmissibility process in their own language. Immigrants

should also be able to take their case to a judicial review if they so choose.

It should no longer be acceptable, in a country that claims to be

democratic, accountable, and respectful of human rights, to employ the discourse

of national security in order to justify the undemocratic and discriminatoryexclusion of immigrants from a safe future in Canada. (Canadian Council for

Refugees, 2003). It is for this reason that theWe Are Jos campaign began. In the

next section, the We Are Joscampaign and its significance will be discussed.

Additionally, an overview will be provided detailing how you can support theWe

Are Jos campaign and get involved in the struggle for immigrant and refugee

rights.


44/57

%+

Section Five: How

This section will explore how the We Are Jos movement seeks to bring justice for Jos and other immigrants like him. We will discuss what the We Are Jos movement is, why it is important, and how you can become

involved.

What is the We Are Jos movement? We Are Jos is a social movement that began in support of Jos Figueroa, a

Salvadoran citizen who had been living in Canada for 15 years, when he received

deportation orders from the Canadian government. Joss case is unique in that he

and his wife have three Canadian-born children; they are Canadian citizens and

have never called El Salvador home. If Jos and his family were to be uprooted and

sent back to El Salvador, the children would not be provided with the same

opportunities they have received in Canada. As well, Joss eldest son was

diagnosed with Autism in 2002, and the family is concerned that if they were to be

deported, their son would not receive the same treatment and resources provided

to him in Canada. The We Are Jos movement started as support for Jos and a way

to get his story heard to draw attention to his case in order to get his deportation

order reversed. From here, the movement progressed in support of others

experiencing circumstances like Joss. The organization aims to provide

information and help to others in precarious citizenship circumstances and to aid

them in the process of demanding justice. Many others in this position may be

unaware of laws, their rights, and they may struggle with the barriers in the legal


45/57

%"

system discussed in the previous section. All of these aspects can lead to the

misinformation of immigrants or the systematic discrimination of immigrants in the

legal system. The We Are Jos movement aims to assist those in similar precarious

circumstances in order to prevent more situations like Joss from occurring.

Why is the We Are Jos Movement important?

It is important to understand the significance of the We Are Jos movement,

not just for its potential impacts on Jos and his family, but also as a significant

political moment (Nyers, 2003). Anti-deportation activism, specifically by and with

non-citizen individuals, contests and counters the increasingly restrictive and

oppressive immigration measures and creates space for new ways of thinking and

acting politically (Nyers, 2003, 1071). This form of activism recognizes the violence

with which individuals are excluded from and forced into the category of

speechless, agency-less, invisible, and apolitical non-citizens (Nyers, 2003).

Traditionally, the ability to engage in political speech and action is one that

belongs to citizens. In this system, those who are denied citizenship by the state

are also denied the right to be seen and heard as political beings. Thus, theWe Are

Jos movement is a radical political moment wherein Jos is interrupting the

dominant political order not just to be heard, but to demand recognition as an

equal speaking being.


46/57

%#

It aligns with Rancires vision of political activity as a form of activity that

shifts a body from the place assigned to it. It makes visible what had no business

being seen, and makes heard as discourse where once there was only place for

noise; it makes understood as discourse what was once only heard as noise

(Rancire, 1999, 30). In the context of Joss case, the concept of shifting a body

from the place assigned to it takes on deeper significance. By engaging in this

form of anti-deportation activism, Jos is not only trying to shift from the apolitical

identity assigned to him by virtue of being a non-citizen to a political identity, but

to contest and challenge the idea that his body has been assigned for deportation

to El Salvador.

The We Are Jos movement calls into question the naturalness of the

dominant virtues and decisions and reveals their arbitrariness (Isin, 2002, 275). This

campaign has the potential to advance a form of democratic cosmopolitanismdescribed by Peter Nyers that transforms our understanding of citizenship from a

status ascribed (or not) by states to a practice in which migrants and their allies

hold states accountable for their definitions and distributions of goods, powers,

rights, freedoms, privileges, and justice (Honig, 2001, 104). In the words of Etienne

Balibar (2000), movements like We Are Jos have the ability to break through

communication barriers, to allow non-citizens to be seen and heard for what they

are: not specters of delinquency and invasion, but workers and families, from here

and there at the same time (Balibar, 2000, 43). Joss story can make facts,

questions and even oppositions linked to the real problems of immigration


47/57

%$

circulate in public space, instead of the stereotype held by dominant information

monopolies (Balibar, 2000, 43). It is by understanding the history of immigration

policy in Canada, the discourses surrounding the securitization and its implications,

and the significance of the We Are Jos movement as a critical political moment,

that we appreciate the significance of Joss case, ally with him and act to bring

justice for Jos and the many other immigrants who are facing and will face similar

injustices.

How you can get involved

There are many ways in which you can get involved in the We Are Jos movement.

Any action you can take in solidarity with Jos can make a big difference in the

outcome of his case, and the cases of many others like him.

You can make a video in support of Jos and his cause. For an example of

the format for the video, visit weareJos.wordpress.com/tellyourstory. Donate to the Indiegogo campaign to help Jos Figueroa and his family

with the legal costs associated with his fight for justice in the face of a

wrongful deportation order. All funds will go towards supporting Jos cover

the financial costs of his fight for justice. The family is in dire need of your

support, as they are swimming in legal debt and struggling to support their

children due to the fact that Jos can not work as long as he continues to be

forced to live in sanctuary. The Indiegogo campaign can be found athttps://www.indiegogo.com/projects/we-are-jose

Follow the We Are Jos movement on twitter at twitter.com/weareJose or

find the movement on Facebook.


48/57

%%

Spread the word! Whether you use word of mouth, Facebook, Twitter,

school organizations or blogs, any way you can help in getting the word out

about Jos and his organization helps the cause. In addition to these methods, there are several individuals you can write or

email to show your support for Jos. For sample letters to send to the

people listed below, see below or visit http://barrio-nuevo.org/?p=28. You

can even organize a letter writing campaign to have more of an impact! Send an email to the Ministers of Citizenship and Immigration and

Public Safety to show your support for the reversal of Joss deportation

order. You can send an email to the Honourable Chris Alexander (Minister of

Citizenship and Immigration) at [email protected] or send a letter to

The Honourable Chris Alexander, P.C., M.P.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada

365 Laurier Avenue West

Ottawa, Ontario

K1A 1L1

Honourable Steven Blaney (The Minister of Public Safety) at

[email protected]. (A sample letter can be found below) or send

a letter to

Minister of Public Safety

House of Commons

Ottawa, Canada

K1A 0A6

Or email the FMLN leadership in El Salvador at

[email protected]


49/57


50/57


51/57

%(

To the FMLN Leadership

Estimados miembros de la Comisin Poltica:Reciban saludos solidarios desde Canad.

Les escribo sobre el caso de Jos Figueroa. El Sr.Figueroa es un salvadoreo que ha residido en la ciudad deLangley, cerca de Vancouver, por 13 aos con su esposa (tambinsalvadorea) y sus tres hijos salvadoreo-canadienses.Actualmente, el Sr. Figueroa est bajo orden de deportacin por

el Consejo de Inmigracin y Refugiados (IRB) canadiense, dado que la Agencia Canadiense de Servicios Fronterizos (CBSA) y elMinisterio de Seguridad Pblica lo han declarado inadmisible aCanad por sus vnculos con el FMLN en los aos 80. Dehecho, las autoridades canadienses involucradas en este casohan concluido que el FMLN es una organizacin que hacometido actos de terrorismo.

Muchos canadienses, incluyendo a varios de origensalvadoreo, han denunciado los argumentos y las medidastomadas por las autoridades estatales en el caso de JosFigueroa. Por razones obvias, rechazamos categricamente queel FMLN es o fue una organizacin terrorista y porconsiguiente, que la presencia de Jos Figueroa en Canad seauna amenaza a la seguridad pblica de este pas.

Adems, s que el Sr. Figueroa no ha sido el nicoafectado por la vinculacin por parte de las autoridades

canadienses del FMLN con el terrorismo. Conocemos del casodel Magistrado del Tribunal Supremo Electoral y militantehistrico del FMLN, el cro. Eugenio Chicas, quien la CBSAdetuvo en junio del 2009 por varias horas en el AeropuertoInternacional Pearson de Toronto por razones semejantes porlas que el Sr. Figueroa fue declarado inadmisible a Canad. En el


52/57

%)

caso del cro. Chicas, entiendo que dadas algunas intervenciones por la comunidad salvadorea en Toronto y la Embajada de ElSalvador en Canad, se le permiti entrar a Canad, an bajoalgunas restricciones, y que Cancillera le envi una notadiplomtica al gobierno canadiense al respecto.

Tomando todo lo anterior en cuenta, respetuosa- ysolidariamente les solicito a ustedes y su partido que incidansobre el caso de Jos Figueroa aclarndole al Ministro deSeguridad Pblica, el Honorable Vic Toews, que el FMLN no esni nunca ha sido una organizacin terrorista y que, porconsiguiente, una asociacin con el FMLN no debera servircomo criterio de inadmisibilidad a Canad.

Agradezco de antemano su atencin a este caso,

Resources Stay up to date on Joss case and learn more information:

@weareJose wearejose.wordpress.com

We Are Jose wearejose.drupalgardens.com


53/57

%*

References:

Abu-Laban, Y. (1998). Welcome/Stay Out. The contradiction of Canadianintegration and immigration policies at the millennium.Canadian EthnicStudies Journal, 30 (3), 190 202.

Aiken, S. (2001). Manufacturing Terrorists: Refugees, National Security andCanadian Law.Refuge, 19(3), 54-73.

Antelo, M. (2013). Sanctuary: Last Hope for failed Refugees.Immigrant WomensCentre. Ontario: Hamilton. Retrieved from:http://womenspressiwc.ca/archives/1439

Arakelian, K. (2004).The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act: One Step Forward,Two Steps Back. (Masters Thesis). Concordia University, Montreal. Retrievedfrom: http://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/8189/

Balibar, E. (2000). What We Owe to the Sans-Papiers. In L. Guenther & C. Heesters(Eds.),Social Insecurity (42-3). Toronto: Anansi.

Barutciski, M. (2012).The Impact of the Lack of Legal Representation in the Canadian Asylum Process. UNHCR.

Behrens, M. (2014, March 21). Does Ottawa believe the Salvadoran government isterrorist? Retrieved from: http://rabble.ca/columnists/2014/03/does-ottawa-believe-salvadoran-government-terrorist

Bell, C. (2006). Subject to Exception: Security Certificates, National Security andCanada's Role in the "War on Terror".Canadian Journal of Law and Society,21(1), 63-83.

Burman, J. (2006). Absence, Removal, and Everyday Life in the Diasporic City:Antidetention/Antideportation Activism in Montral.Space and Culture, 9 (3),279-293.


54/57


55/57

&"

Hardt, M., & Negri, M. (2000).Empire. London: Harvard University Press.

Hindess, B. (2003). Responsibility for others in the modern system of states. Journalof Sociology, 39(1), 23-30.

Honig, B. (2001).Democracy and the Foreigner . Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress

Ibrahim, M. (2005). The Securitization of Migration: A Racial Discourse.InternationalMigration, 43 (5), 163-187.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. (2001, c. 27). Retrieved from theDepartment of Justice Canada Website: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-2.5/

Isin, E. (2002).Being Political: Genealogies of Citizenship . Minneapolis, MN: Universityof Minnesota Press.

Kaushal, A. & Dauvergne, C. (2011). The Growing Culture of Exclusion: Trends inCanadian Refugee Exclusions.International Journal of Refugee Law, 23 (1), 54-92.

Lowry, M. (2002). Creating Human Insecurity: the National Security Focus inCanadas Immigration System.Refuge, 21(1), 28-39.

MacKinnon, L. (2013, April 25). 8 things to know about the new anti-terrorism bill.

CBC News.Retrieved from: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/8-things-to-know-about-the-new-anti-terrorism-bill-1.1413346

Macklin, A. (2001). Borderline Security. In Daniels, J., Macklem, P. & K. Roach (Eds.),The Security of Freedom: Essays on Canadas Anti-terrorism Bill (383-404).Toronto: University of Toronto Press Inc.

The Maytree Foundation. (October 2, 2001). Brief to the Senate Committee onSocial Affairs, Science and Technology regarding Bill C-11, Immigration andRefugee Protection Act. Retreieved from:http://maytree.com/PDF_Files/summaryc11senatebrief2001.pdf

National Immigration Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association (CBA). (2012).Bill C-43, Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act. Ottawa, Ontario: CanadianBar Association.

Nyers, P. (2003). Abject Cosmopolitanism: the politics of protection in the anti-deportation movement. Third World Quarterly, 24 (6), 1069, 1093.


56/57

Pratt, A. (1999). Dunking the Doughnut: Discretionary Power, Law and theAdministration of the Canadian Immigration Act.Social & Legal Studies, 8(2),199-226.

Rancire, J. (1999).Dis-agreement: Politics and Philosophy . Minneapolis, MN:

University of Minnesota Press.

Re Ahani. (1998). F.C.J. No. 507. Retrieved from: http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/39613/index.do?r=AAAAAQAFYWhhbmkAAAAAAQ

Roach, K. (2005). The Three Year Review of Canadas Anti-Terrorism Act: The needfor greater restraint and fairness, non-discrimination, and special advocates.University of New Brunswick Law Journal, 54, 308-335.

Rygiel, K. (2010).Globalizing Citizenship. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Sharma, N. (2011). Canadian multiculturalism and its nationalisms. In Chazan, M.,Helps, L., Stanley, A. & S. Takkar (Eds.),Home and Native Land: UnsettlingMulticulturalism in Canada. (85-101). Toronto: Between the Lines.

Social Planning and Research Council of B.C (SPARC BC). (2005). An Analysis ofImmigration and Refugee Law Services in Canada. Department of JusticeCanada.

The Law Society of Upper Canada. ( 2012).The Steps in an Application for JudicialReview in Federal Court. Retrieved from The Law Society of Upper CanadaWebsite: http://www.lsuc.on.ca/For-Lawyers/Manage-Your-

Practice/Practice-Area/Administrative-Law/The-Steps-in-an-Application-for-Judicial-Review-in-Federal-Court/

Thompson, R. (2013).When Borders Cross People: Bill C-31 and the Securitization ofBoundaries Across Bodies and History. (Masters Thesis). University of Toronto,Toronto. Retrieved from:https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/42651

UN Security Council. (1993). Report of the UN Truth Commission on El Salvador.Equipo Nizkor. Retrieved from:http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/salvador/informes/truth.html

Vigil Campaign. (2014).Oscar Vigil Belongs to Canada. Retrieved from:http://vigilcampaign.ca/oscar-belongs-to-canada/

Waldman, L. (2004).Immigration Law and Practice: Volume 1. Markham, Ontario:LexisNexis Butterworths.


57/57

** All facts about Joss history and his current case that are uncited within the textof the handbook have been compiled from personal communication with Jos andofficial publications of theWe Are Jos campaign. These have been left uncited,

because it is the stated intent of this document to be used by Jos Figueroa andthe We Are Jos campaign and the authors of this handbook decided it would onlyclutter the text to include these citations throughout. Any uncited facts regardingJoss case or the details of his current case are from information compiled fromthe following sources:

We Are Jos. (2011).http://weareJos.wordpress.com/ We Are Jos.http://weareJos.drupalgardens.com/ We Are Jos.https://www.facebook.com/pages/We-Are-Jos/130762186993781 Personal Communication with Jos Figueroa. (February 27, 2013).

We Are Jose Handbook

Documents

Transcript of We Are Jose Handbook