Bidragsfusk bland invandrare/romer (/mod)

DNA and immigration: the ethical ramifications

Although family reunification
accounts for the bulk of legal
immigration, global economic slowdowns
have caused governments to
narrow the range of people that qualify
for family reunification. At the same
time, governments are requiring more
extensive documentation to prove
applicants’ biological relationships to
their sponsors. Since western style
identity documentation is uncommon
in numerous developing countries,
many immigrant-receiving nations,
including Canada, Australia, the
USA, Finland, Denmark, Sweden,
Italy, the UK, and New Zealand, have
turned to DNA technology to provide
proof of family relationships. The
number of individuals who undergo
DNA testing fluctuates from a small
number of cases each year in some
counties, to more than a thousand
in one major immigrant receiving
country.
Family reunification is vital to the
welfare of immigrants. Experience has
shown that family units have a better
chance of successfully integrating into
a new country. Unwanted separation
from close family members creates an
emotional burden for everyone
involved, and children separated from
their parents or customary caregivers
are particularly vulnerable to longterm
physical, intellectual, and psychological
problems.1 Separated
refugee or displaced children are at an
especially high risk for abusive situations
such as sexual violence and
exploitation. Although DNA testing
can assist immigrants and refugees by
facilitating family reunification in the
absence of required documentation,
there exist a myriad of ethical concerns
that require due consideration.
First, families are not always biologically
related. In western societies,
babies born within the context of a
relationship are automatically
accepted as the children of that relationship.
However these same countries
require a positive DNA result in
order to make determinations with
respect to family reunification. Not
surprisingly, DNA test results can be a
shock to some families that receive
them. In one case, for example, a child
from Kenya was proven not to be the
biological offspring of either his father
or his mother after DNA testing.
Apparently he was reclaimed mistakenly
by his mother after several years’
separation as a result of civil war.
Further, there is no universally
recognised definition of family. In
many cultures “family” incorporates
both a wider range of biological relatives
and members that are related
socially rather than biologically.
Indeed, 58% of Somalis given DNA
testing by Danish authorities between
January, 1997, and September, 1998,
received a negative result. In response
to these findings, Somali community
leaders argued that “the concept of
family is very different in [Somali] culture,
and many Somalis are not aware
of the Danish concept of who is a family
member and thereby entitled to
family reunification”.2
DNA testing can disrupt the family
unit, particularly affecting the welfare
of the children involved (panel).
Requests for DNA testing can also be
discriminatory as certain ethnic
groups are asked to submit to DNA
testing more often than are others.
Concerns have been raised that officials
appear to more readily reject documents
provided by people from
poorer countries. In fact, the
Canadian Council for Refugees claims
that applicants at some Canadian visa
posts (particularly those in Bangladesh
and Africa) are often asked to undergo
DNA testing.
Not everyone is able to provide
DNA test results on demand. For one,
the tests are extremely expensive and
many applicants cannot afford to pay.
Moreover, there may be religious constraints
preventing applicants from
agreeing to submit to DNA testing. In
one Canadian case, the defendant, a
refugee from the Democratic Republic
of Congo, refused a request for DNA
testing because it contravened his religious
beliefs as a Jehovah’s Witness.
DNA technology has the potential
to be a useful tool in making decisions
about family reunification in cases that
lack documentary evidence to establish
a relationship. However, for DNA
testing to help rather than hinder the
family reunification process, it is
essential that the proper safeguards be
in place. Because countries make their
own determinations regarding family
reunification, strict national guidelines
are essential to ensure that it is used in
an even-handed and non-discriminatory
manner. Above all, DNA testing
should be reserved as an absolute last
resort when no other evidence is available
and the applicant would otherwise
have to be rejected. Immigration
authorities need to be aware of the
intrusiveness of the test and its potential
to disrupt a family unit when
deciding whether to recommend biological
testing. If testing is required, it
is imperative that adequate counselling
be provided to deal with the
repercussions of the results. Due consideration
should also be given to the
high cost of DNA tests and the fact
that they delay the reunification
process.
J Taitz, *J E M Weekers, D T Mosca
University of Toronto, Faculty of Law, Ontario,
Canada; *Migration Health Services,
International Organization for Migration,
PO Box 71, CH-1211 Geneva 19, Switzerland;
and Migration Health Services, International
Organization for Migration, Nairobi, Kenya
(e-mail: jweekers@iom.int)
1 UNHCR. Refugee children: guidelines on
protection and care. Geneva: UNHCR,
1994.
2 United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees. DNA test for Somalis found more
than half cases false (AsylNord No 6).
Geneva: UNHCR, 1998