Gérer la citoyenneté, la sécurité et les droits: comprendre la régulation de la migration de mariage en Europe et en Amérique du Nord.
The tension between the right to family reunification as laid down in European Directives and Member States’ concern to protect their sovereignty in regulating migration has resulted in growing attention to and concern about fraudulent family relationships (especially marriages of convenience). This contribution addresses the question of what forms of control are permissible from a European law perspective and whether national practices are in conformity with European law and fundamental rights.
This research investigates the ways in which marriage migration, which was relatively insignificant in the early phases of post-War immigration, has become the object of intense state scrutiny and the site of political interventions in the past twenty years, as family-related migration became the main legal mode of entry in Western Europe, Canada and the United States (Kraler, 2010). Such interventions have taken different forms, and have become increasingly debated. Indeed, they seem to pit what many deem to be a fundamental principle in Western democracies, namely the right to family life (at least for established citizens), against calls and pressures for tightened migration policies.
The Government of Canada has removed the condition that applied to some sponsored spouses or partners of Canadian citizens and permanent residents to live with their sponsor in order to keep their permanent resident status.
Le gouvernement du Canada a éliminé la condition selon laquelle certains époux ou partenaires parrainés par des citoyens canadiens ou des résidents permanents devaient vivre avec leur répondant afin de conserver leur statut de résident permanent.
Immigration Minister John McCallum says he’s planning on introducing changes in the “next couple of months” that will grant permanent resident status to the sponsored spouses of Canadians, immediately, upon arriving in Canada.
“When spouses come in now, they don’t immediately become permanent residents; there’s a two-year period where they are not yet permanent residents,” Mr. McCallum (Markham-Thornhill, Ont.) said in an interview with The Hill Times. “We said in our platform that we will end that so that they will become permanent residents on arrival.”
3.71 A surprisingly large number of those who attended the detainee forum I organised had been detained because of allegedly sham marriages. Most had been detained after Home Office interviews in Liverpool or Manchester. The questions they said they had been asked by caseworkers to ascertain whether their marriage was a sham included their knowledge of their wife’s National Insurance number, the colour of her underwear, and her bra size. If this was indeed the case, it is questionable whether such questions were either appropriate or useful.
Ce chapitre examine les circonstances dans lesquelles un mariage impliquant un conjoint migrant hors-EEA est désigné comme un simulacre de mariage afin que les droits de séjour soient refusés. Il analyse les problèmes de compréhension et de définition d’un faux mariage et fait valoir que les contrôles sur les mariages fictifs régulent souvent un plus large éventail de mariages que ceux conclus dans le seul but d'obtenir des droits de résidence.
This chapter investigates the circumstances in which a marriage involving a non- EEA migrant spouse is designated a sham marriage so that residence rights are refused. It analyses the problems of understanding and defining a sham marriage and argues that controls over sham marriages often regulate a much wider range of marriages than those entered for the sole purpose of obtaining residence rights.
Cet article examine l'argument accidentel de procréation à travers le cadre de la théorie anthropologique, de l'histoire, de la littérature et de la loi constitutionnelle. Nous concluons que le mariage est parfois utilisé pour canaliser l'hétérosexualité masculine dans la reproduction, mais de faire valoir que cet objectif est la condition sine qua non du mariage est de simplifier considérablement son histoire à la fois dans la loi et de la culture.
This article examines the accidental procreation argument through the lenses of anthropological theory, history, literature, and constitutional law. We conclude that marriage has sometimes been used to channel male heterosexuality into reproduction, but to argue that this goal is the sine qua non of marriage is to vastly oversimplify its history in both law and culture.