Canada must stem the mass influx of illegals

Identify U.S. as ‘safe third country’ for starters, writes Stephen Gallagher

It is both bizarre and unacceptable that Canada should accept this mass influx of asylum-seeking migrants originating from the United States, the richest country in the world.

Many of these asylum seekers have been legal residents in the U.S. for years, while others have asylum claims in progress. Yes, they have the right to make a refugee claim and enter Canada under current law, but international law and practice does not oblige Canada to grant entry to this asylum-seeking flow.

Canada should change the law to bring it into conformity with international norms.

Although Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s statement in March to the effect that “regardless of who you are or where you come from, there’s always a place for you in Canada” is widely regarded as the cause of this mass influx, the fact is that Canada’s open door to refugees entering from the U.S. has been a problem faced by Canadian governments for decades.

Because of pro-immigration and pro-refugee advocacy, none of the national parties has had the interest or will to address this longstanding lacuna in Canadian border control.

Central to the current situation is the fact Canada’s Safe Third Country Agreement with the U.S. — the most recent attempt to address cross-border asylum-seeking — has been ineffective from the beginning.

In its first year of operation, 2005, out of 4,033 claims made at the border, only 303 were deemed ineligible because of the STCA. Between 2007-11, out of approximately 32,500 refugee claims made at land border points, only 3,260 — or about 10 per cent — could not exploit one of the highly questionable exemptions found in the STCA.

In terms of what should be done, and done quickly, Canada should unilaterally identify the U.S. as a “safe third country” to halt this irregular flow of asylum seekers. The obvious and long-standing template for the details of rules and regulations for an effective safe third country policy is the European Dublin Regulation, which is the core migration management tool in Europe.

Reforms should include changes to the specifics of the exemptions so our laws are consistent with the basic internationally accepted logic that an asylum seeker must claim protection at the first refuge-granting safe country they reach.

Implementing such internationally accepted norms would stem the bulk of this flow.

But the problems don’t end at the border. Part of the reason for this influx is that the existing refugee determination process that is centred in the Immigration and Refugee Board is hopelessly backlogged and pretty much guarantees years of residency in Canada before there is some possibility of removal.

Take the case of Haitians, who make up as much as 65 per cent of the current flow. Their history implies more of a humanitarian concern, rather than a situation of persecution, as defined by the UN refugee convention.

For example, many of the new arrivals state they have come to Canada because they don’t like or trust U.S. President Donald Trump, fear “discrimination” in the U.S. or that they might lose their status in the U.S. and be returned to Haiti, where life is difficult.

This is problematic because humanitarian claims are not normally successful in the IRB process — which isn’t surprising, given that half the world could apply to come here if this were a valid reason for seeking refugee status.

The integrity of the entire system is dependent on a well-founded expectation that Canada will remove failed refugee claimants in a timely manner. With respect to the present mass migrant influx in Quebec, in the current policy environment with an open border and a backlogged IRB, there can be no such expectation.