Safe Third Country deal should be expanded
In-land refugees are risking their lives, write Avnish Nanda and Raj Sharma.
Canadians have been inundated with media reports of desperate migrants trekking over rugged terrain in freezing temperatures into Canada from the United States to claim asylum.
The image of an RCMP officer welcoming a child migrant has likely appeared on your social media feed, along with a caption proudly proclaiming refugees are welcome in Canada. This narrative of Canada as a shining castle on a hill for refugees is deeply flawed and does not reflect the enormous obstacles migrants face in obtaining asylum in Canada.
The improbable election of Donald Trump has caused many journalists to take Trump and his campaign promises both literally and seriously. The executive order banning immigration from seven Muslim majority countries and refugees for a 120-day period was the clearest indication this U.S. administration would be unlike any other. And with Trump’s aggressive crackdown on asylum seekers and undocumented migrants, it’s apparent the impacts will be felt around the world, including Canada.
It’s hard to blame Canadians looking for an uplifting narrative against the dark, dystopian, anti-Muslim and anti-refugee messaging of Trump, particularly journalists. However, their uncritical coverage will not age well, particularly if failed asylum seekers from the U.S. are not successful in their efforts to remain here.
Canada is not a Disneyland for asylum seekers. There is a rigorous, comprehensive set of requirements refugee claimants must meet, failing which will result in their claims being denied and removal being initiated. Over the past few years, only about half of all refugee claimants who made their claims in Canada have been successful.
Asylum seekers, particularly those that have issues establishing personal identity (practically everyone from Somalia) or fearing violence as a result of their sexual orientation face serious obstacles in establishing their claims here. Additionally, there are strict requirements on the grounds and threshold of persecution. Persecution must be real, preventing them from returning to any region of their country of origin. Migrants seeking better economic opportunities, absent persecution on a personal level, will not be admitted as refugees.
Failing to recognize the significant challenges asylum seekers face in making claims in Canada only emboldens those who want to shut Canada’s borders to those individuals in desperate need of asylum. We have witnessed the fanning of fear over the relatively small number of asylum seekers who have made their way north. For example, political leadership aspirants whose ambition greatly exceeds their personal appeal are quick to stoke nativist sentiment.
This is a small leak and trickle, not a deluge and our refugee system has handled far more in years past. The Safe Third Country Agreement, which normally prevents making a refugee claim at a land port of entry by anyone that entered the U.S. first, was only enacted in 2004.
However, it would still be smart for Canada to develop a more efficient way to deal with in-land refugees to discourage further unauthorized border crossings, and at the same time recognize and provide succour to meritorious individuals in desperate straits. Individuals are taking potentially dangerous actions to circumvent the agreement and arrive in Canada. We need to encourage asylum seekers to use safer avenues to make their claims.
That solution may actually be to extend the agreement to those crossing without authorization, which would prevent a refugee claim even being made in-land. Instead, provide these migrants at a designated point of entry — such as an airport or border crossing — with a paper-based risk assessment instead of a refugee hearing, and assess at the same time whether there are humanitarian and compassionate grounds to allow them to stay (right now, the humanitarian and compassionate grounds assessment is unavailable for most failed refugee claimants for 12 months after their decision).
The humanitarian and compassionate grounds assessment is a more flexible test than the strict thresholds of a claim for refugee protection. This would meet our obligations to assess risk, maintain our humanitarian tradition, and discourage actions that undermine the integrity of our immigration system.