WE MUST STOP THE MASS INFLUX OF MIGRANTS NOW
Canada needs European-style regulations to stop flow, 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 and 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 long-standing lacuna in Canadian border control.
Central to the current situation is the fact that 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 and 2011, 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 longstanding 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 that 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.
To 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 that they have come to Canada because they don’t like or trust 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 is not surprisingly given that half the world could apply to come here if this were a valid reason for seeking refugee status.
The IRB process involves two stages — a “first instance” hearing by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) and whose decisions can be appealed to the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD).
I would argue that in terms of the integrity of the entire process the problem/choke point is likely to be the RAD because of its limited capacity, approximately 3,000 appeals a year, and the fact that it can be accessed by the vast majority of denied refugee claimants including those who might be denied in this most recent influx.
Specifically, on Aug. 10, it was reported that 4,750 refugee claims were made in Quebec from July 1, compared to 6,580 claims from January to June.
At this rate, and assuming that 50 per cent are denied refugee status at the RPD, it will take the RAD at least a year to review the denied claims generated by the illegal flow entering Quebec for just July and August. It must be kept in mind that this flow is on top of the regular refugee claimant flow into the rest of Canada.
Earlier this year, the government stated it expected a total of 36,000 claims this year but at this point this number looks optimistic. The possibility exists that the number will surpass the 45,000 received in 2001, which is the highest number of refugee claims received in Canada since the IRB came into existence in 1998.
Overall, 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.
With respect to the open border, no past government, Liberal or Conservative, has been willing to expend the political capital to address the potential risk of a mass migrant influx at the border that has now come to pass.
This flow from the United States taking advantage of the absence of an effective safe third country policy has at times approached and surpassed 10,000 annually. But this flow did not garner much publicity and obviously was not considered sufficiently onerous or costly to trigger a reform initiative in the face of the inevitable refugee advocate backlash with its potential electoral consequences.
Now that a high-profile asylumseeking influx has occurred and the potential exists for many thousands of people from other national and ethnic communities whose future in the U.S. is uncertain to emulate the Haitian example, the Canadian government must act quickly and decisively.
The solution is to implement internationally accepted migration management policy and practice embodied in the principles of the European Dublin Regulation.
Canada should unilaterally identify the U.S. as a ‘safe third country’ to halt this irregular flow of asylum seekers.
Stephen Gallagher lives in Montreal and has lectured in political science at various Canadian universities. He has recently served for six years as a member of the Immigration and Refugee Board.