In this thesis, I focus on minor Canadian children born to non-citizens detained under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act of 2001. My argument is that the standard of treatment meted out to such children is different to that of Canadian children with a detained parent in the Canadian prison system. While both actions are claimed to be “in the best interests of the child,” I assert that the law treats best interests of Canadian children differently when their parents are detained under immigration laws. Tracing a general evolution of the concept of “best interests of the child” (BIOC) laid down in Article 3 (1) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, I analyze its reception and application in Canadian immigration laws. After that, I contrast the same with the application of this principle under child protection laws in Ontario and British Columbia. These two provinces have two of the three Immigration Holding Centres (IHC) in Canada and therefore permit the best comparison. I analyze the discourses surrounding detention of non-citizens’ children, including laws, policies, guidelines, oral/written reasonings to understand the process of legitimization involved and the inherent contradictions within them. Applying Lajos Brons’ concept of “sophisticated othering” I argue that Canada indulges in the process of “othering” when it interprets a legal concept (BIOC) differently for two similarly placed subjects.