Border jumpers get free pass
Liberals turn blind eye to keep Trump happy
The Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the U.S. has been exposed as an oxymoron, like friendly fire or jumbo shrimp.
Quite simply, there is no agreement.
Canada thinks asylum seekers should request refugee protection in the first safe country in which they arrive — i.e., the U.S.
The Americans, on the other hand, are quite happy to see illegal aliens deport themselves to Canada, using a loophole in the agreement that they would prefer not to close.
If asylum seekers cross into Canada somewhere other than an official point of entry — even if they are in plain sight of a border checkpoint — they can claim protection under the Charter of Rights and undergo security checks as potential refugees. Those who pass those checks are admitted to Canada, are free to move around the country and are eligible for health and social assistance benefits, until their case is heard by the Immigration and Refugee Board.
Around 2,000 people a month are currently being intercepted by the RCMP, crossing into Quebec between ports of entry.
Mike MacDonald, an associate assistant deputy minister at the Citizenship and Immigration department, told a parliamentary committee on Thursday there are a number of “challenges” with the Safe Third Country Agreement — namely, it’s 14 years old and doesn’t reflect modern biometric technologies.
But mainly — and I’m paraphrasing here — because it doesn’t work when it comes to the principle upon which it relies — that asylum seekers seek protection in the first country where they can.
He said Canada has been in “constant contact” with the U.S. about the Roxham Road crossing, near St. Bernard-de-Lacolle, Que., where many of the illegal crossings take place. But he said no formal negotiations to make the entire border subject to the agreement are taking place.
Michelle Rempel, the Conservative immigration critic, said Friday that MacDonald’s testimony provides evidence that officials are doing what the Trudeau government is refusing to do, “finally sending a proposal to deal with the influx of illegal border crossings.”
But it is hard to negotiate with someone who doesn’t want to talk.
Jason Kenney, the former federal immigration minister, said he asked Janet Napolitano, his U.S. counterpart at Homeland Security, about closing the loophole and was told it was a “nonstarter” because it is impossible to address immigration issues in Washington without a comprehensive reform bill. “I think that was disingenuous,” he said Friday.
Reuters quoted a Homeland Security spokeswoman last week saying the government is reviewing a Canadian proposal to amend the agreement.
But Canada would be advised not to set great store in such words. Trump has made clear that America is no longer a refuge for the world’s huddled masses.
Canada continues to be exceptionally welcoming to the homeless and tempesttossed, taking in 46,000 in 2016. More asylum claimants crossed into Canada at its border with the United States last year than were welcomed as refugees from Syria the previous year.
But whereas the Syrian migration was planned and by invitation, the waves of humanity flooding across the border in Quebec is illegal and cannot be allowed to continue unabated. This is not a nativist argument — it’s a legal one.
The number of would-be refugees claiming asylum at the border has doubled in the past five years. This is not just a problem that emerged with the election of Donald Trump, though his hostile attitude toward immigrants has given it impetus.
One government source said up to 70 per cent of current illegal asylum seekers crossing in Quebec come from Nigeria, after obtaining visas to visit the U.S. Immigration and Refugee Minister Ahmed Hussen is planning to visit Nigeria in the coming days to reinforce the message that claimants are not guaranteed permanent haven.
The Opposition is calling for more definitive, unilateral action. Rempel has advocated that Parliament designate the entire border a technical point of entry. “The minister says that’s unworkable, but we’re just talking about a technical definition. Why can’t we do that?”
The government’s line is that to do so would be potentially dangerous, since it would incentivize people to cross at more remote locations and evade detection by Canadian law enforcement.
For a small minority, maybe so. But it would be a huge disincentive to head north for the majority of those shopping for asylum.
The real reason why the Liberals are not prepared to act on Rempel’s idea is that they don’t want to upset the Americans at such a delicate time in the bilateral relationship.
“It may also violate our international obligations and the Safe Third Country Agreement,” said a statement from the office of Ralph Goodale, the Public Safety Minister.
So there’s the nub of it. At Roxham Road, there are signs that read: “It is illegal to cross the border here — you will be arrested and detained if you cross here.”
But they are ignored by migrants, well aware that they will be released to enjoy the fruits of the Canadian welfare system.
The reason they are able to cross in the first place is because the Canadian government does not want to abrogate an international agreement that doesn’t work but can’t be renegotiated because the Americans want rid of immigrants from what their president referred to as “shithole countries.”
The Liberals claim they have an unwavering commitment to ensuring Canadian law is applied and that the country’s international obligations are respected. The truth is, those goals are mutually exclusive — and the government is clear about its priority.