Duality In Sociology

The readings for this week emphasized the duality in treatment between those who are deemed to warrant protection and those who are perceived as threats, both of which are delineated along racial, ethnic and nationality boundaries. Chan & Chunn (2014) provide a comprehensive overview of the numerous ways in which “crimmigration” (p.17) has become one of the most prevalent features of immigration policies (p.17). The implementation of permanent resident cards, visas, and other immigration practices, as Chan & Chunn (2014) assert, implicitly (if not explicitly) link a person’s status and mobility, which undeniably has a differential impact on those perceived as problematic due to their race/ethnicity (p.5 & 7-8). Additionally, the discussion

One particularly striking observation made by Abu-Laban & Nath (2007) is that the selective attribution of citizenship status generally worked to deny the systematic racialized nature of the government’s actions in Arar’s case (pp.86, 88 & 91). While this removal of racialized rhetoric certainly in itself is problematic, I wonder if it is even more costly in depriving society of an opportunity to discuss the issues surrounding broader securitization policies. This article also raised the difficulties in resolving the conflicting mandates of multiculturalism and a culture of suspicion that permeates more than the mentalities of law-enforcement (Abu-Laban & Nation, 2007, pp.74 & 78). This reminds me of Gilbert’s (2007) assertion that “while multiculturalism has been perceived as a security risk, the new security agenda is also a risk for multiculturalism” (p.28). Yet, the question remains as to how to navigate the proper balance between the two, or whether these two concepts can simply not

While, at times, detention of immigrants may be justified, the seeming inability to challenge being detained and the variation in decisions according to where you are detained is troubling (End Immigration Detention Network, 2014, p.4). However, I am somewhat sceptical of the exact degree of and reason for the variation that they assert. While, certainly, variations in decision making may be due to personal biases of those reviewing a case, there may be substantial differences between the types of people detained across the country and the reasons for their detention. As such, I think more information is necessary before detention review can completely be regarded as “at the whims of an appointed board member” (End Immigration Detention Network, 2014,