Marginalization And Inclusion In The (Local) State: The Case of Toronto, Canada

This paper will explore the noncitizenship apparatus established by the local state, namely the municipal government of the city of Toronto (Canada). Toronto’s city council declared itself a sanctuary city in early 2013, publicly committing to allowing undocumented individuals full access to municipal services. With this, Toronto publicly endorsed a new municipal community which included those without Canadian citizenship, while the federal (and provincial) governments continue to adhere to a conception of membership premised on formal citizenship, with entitlements contingent on possessing this citizenship. Similarly, Toronto municipal authorities have sanctioned safe injection facilities outside of federal allowances for such facilities. While both the federal and municipal governments have endorsed safe injection facilities/harm reduction, municipal authorities have gone beyond the criteria established by the federal government, expanding the availability of these services. With these two policies, Toronto has defied federal (border and drug) policy priorities and laws in creating municipal policies/services for two extremely marginalized communities. Although Toronto’s municipal authorities have created openness to both undocumented individuals and injection drug users, it is important to note that undocumented individuals’ inclusion into the community is confined to the local state, whereas other orders of government continue to exclude them: they are noncitizens at all Canadian state levels, but with vastly different consequences depending on the component of the state they interact with (openness and service at the city versus closedness and possible detainment at other levels). This noncitizenship positionality will be illustrated through a juxtaposition to injection drug users, and specifically their recourse to the courts in instances when authorities threaten the closure of safe injection sites. This has historic precedent (including at the Supreme Court of Canada) and is a maneuver currently employed by Toronto’s people who use drugs and their allies to counter planned closures of certain safe injection facilities by provincial authorities. Thus, two extremely marginalized communities both find that Toronto municipal authorities are open to them. Yet it is only the undocumented that must rely on the local state for the provision of services, whereas injection drug users can engage with the entirety of the Canadian state apparatus (including the judiciary). This paper will explore the multidimensional character of the state’s interaction with noncitizens through examination of Toronto municipal policies, showing that a certain portion of the state (here a city) does not act in concert with the rest of the state apparatus. In doing so, noncitizens in Toronto are included into the community in ways that they are not in other parts of the Canadian state. However, this inclusion is premised on/located within municipal boundaries and the provision of municipal services which contrasts to injection drug users who, owing to their formal citizenship, can engage the full constellation of the Canadian state apparatus. Ultimately, while the federal state and its laws and policies foster two extremely marginalized communities, one can engage politically to counter this marginalization in a way that the other cannot – mainly owing to their citizenship status.