Precis

Institutionalizing Precarious Migratory Status in Canada
Thesis
The Canadian policy and national context contribute to the emergence of diverse forms of irregularities when it comes to migration and immigration.
Summary
Goldring, Berinstein, and Bernhard (2009) start off by questioning the various forms of the illegality of residence. The authors look into the perceptions in the USA and compare it to Canada. These perceptions dwell on how each country defines unauthorized persons. Investigating further into the summary of illegals in the United States, the authors show how different efforts have been placed in documenting such persons in both countries. In Canada, the topic of immigrants and unauthorized people is not a common subject, therefore, leaving the authors to conclude that there is a little effort put to calculate estimates of these undocumented persons and instigate policy change. The latter reason fuels the authors to review all appropriate laws, documented research and observations critically in the hope of understanding the lack of public debate in Canada over this issue. In the research, the authors argue that citizenship is not a singular or binary state, but rather a multi-dimensional status, defined by certain country policies or rather by how a state implements certain policies. They also add that there are several processes to reach about acquiring this precarious state. These depend on the context of the individual and are mainly linked to the abundance or lack of rights.

It is vital to note that the paper deals with all forms of illegality as precarious.
Evidence and Methods
The authors believe that the lack of certain elements can characterize the precarious status. These elements include a work permit, a residence permit, and social benefits. However, this point raises a contention on how to specifically identify the precarious state, since it questions the core concept and definition of citizenship. Goldring, Berinstein, and Bernhard (2009) derive their understanding from the previous literature of other scholars. Through early scholar findings and their conceptualization, the authors argue that there is the need to show the relevance of a non-binary mode of citizenship. They support this sentiment by stating that doing this exposes the dangers awaiting individuals in the precarious state, as they may be left out of certain benefits. As a result, a social underclass is created. Revealing this non-singular legality mode of residence furthermore removes the blame from the individual and focuses on how legally set constructs play a role in boosting its occurrence. Moreover, the authors insist that if the public debate does not gain traction, unity in the society will be sabotaged.
To add to this, Goldring, Berinstein and Bernhard critically analyze the effect of unauthorized entry into the United States on the socio-political and economic fronts. It becomes apparent while doing this that there is little data to compare with on the Canadian immigration. They conclude that minimal data can be explained by the difference in population sizes between the two countries. They continue to identify approaches used to analyze the illegality of immigrants. These methods include the legitimate creation of illegals, and what defines one to be legal. The authors dive in further to interpret the origins of the Canadian immigrant policies. Through it all, they put a spotlight on how the loss of migratory status is encouraged by poor policies. This sentiment promotes the ideology that there is a blurred boundary between legality and illegality by Bosniak. Through the 1976 immigration policy, the paper describes all the nooks and crannies of legality, even comparing it to the newer 2002 one. The policy is elaborate in defining the different clusters of residents. In the instance of labor workers, the paper extracts its notion that defects that encourage unauthorized entry mars the policy.
The lack of a non-dichotomous approach to legality as concluded by earlier research leaves the paper disputing on the theories of illegality. This disputation is based on the fact that there are several reasons supporting a difference in outlook. For example, the authors reject the data acquired by population variation. Other factors also play a role in understanding why the paper is on the contrary regarding the conceptualization of illegality. These include policy change over time and a variance in the racial constitution. The paper argues that racial constitution allows for a more limber formulation. In the investigation to explain how the precarious state is arrived at, the team outlines several crucial factors. Such causes include breakdowns in sponsorship arrangements, refugee entry and an influx of visitors and laborers. The paper concludes that in all these elements, the laws put in place do not secure a strict rollback implementation in case of failure to acquire citizenship.
Goldring, Berinstein, and Bernhard also delve into the connection between admittance of services and immigration status. The paper draws its opinion as a result of the social underclass created from different levels of precarious states. It reasons out that depending on the level of illegality of an individual, service acquisition will be varied. Goldring, Berinstein, and Bernhard (2009) also add that such divergence in population might affect social relations among people. The authors see precariousness as a major player in deciding how guests are treated in a country. At the end of the paper, the authors resolve that the part played by social, economic and political policies is creating a design that will discriminate individuals by their migratory status. They also add that these are women who suffer most from this segregation. The paper terminates by stating that between legal and illegal, there exists no dichotomy. It also proposes that the mindset of different countries when classifying illegals varies on several aspects of geography and immigration and refugee policy. Finally, the authors support their claims of precariousness by acknowledging its relevance. The authors state that admitting the existence of a precarious state challenges the limits of legality exposes the aspects facing illegality and is as per earlier literature by scholars.
Critical Analysis
The strength of this paper is how the authors discuss about the non-binary existence of migratory status in Canada since it captures a niche that is not often discussed. It highlights all the issues associated with in-between migratory states and outlines the various components that promote this state. It also expounds on earlier literature and confirms the role of each element in curbing the matter. The authors utilize all relevant resources to translate and illustrate the existing problem perfectly. The research is non-partisan and acknowledges the dangers of its approach while defending merits associated with it.
The weakness of the research is that it does not take into account the fact that in time, policies on migration change. The analysis provided only applies in an ideal setting where factors such as security remain constant. Such is not the situation in the modern times. The blurred lines of legality might alter as a result. Moreover, the categorization of all forms of illegality as precarious presents the problem of difference in the path of entry into a country. A case example would be, it would be harder to track and deport illegals who are undocumented, but it would be a lot easier for a documented illegal to be found since their existence is known.

Reference
Goldring, L., Berinstein, C., & Bernhard, J. K. (2009). Institutionalizing precarious migratory status in Canada. Citizenship Studies, 13(3), 239-265. doi:10.1080/13621020902850643