What to do about ‘irregular’ asylum seekers
Rather than suspending the Safe Third Country Agreement, the deal’s reach should be extended, Matthew P. Harrington says.
Celine Cooper (“Let’s act to regularize flow of asylum seekers,” April 24), accurately diagnoses the problem, but prescribes the wrong remedy. As have several other commentators, Cooper suggests that the way to address the flow of “irregular” asylum seekers — which is to say, migrants who do not come through the established border checkpoints — is to suspend the Safe Third Country Agreement.
This bilateral agreement between Canada and the United States requires asylum seekers to apply in the first of the two countries in which they arrive.
The purpose of the agreement is to prevent “forum shopping,” letting immigrants move through multiple safe countries until they find one that suits their preferences. This phenomenon was on display in the great migration taking place across Europe in the past several years. Migrants from North Africa and the Middle East passed through multiple safe countries in order to reach more advanced and wealthier countries, such as Germany.
In Canada’s case, the irregular movement across the border is prompted by the fact that the Safe Third Country Agreement only applies to migrants who cross at the established border points. Asylum seekers who arrive at border checkpoints are sent back to make their application in the United States.
Meanwhile, those who come through the woods are not subject to its provisions and are, as a result, permitted to apply for asylum in Canada. Asylum seekers know this. Hence, the rise in irregular crossings.
Many have noted the dangers attending these illegal crossings for the migrants and suggested that the solution is to suspend the Safe
Many have noted the dangers attending these illegal crossings for the migrants.
Third Country Agreement. This would, they say, direct migrants to cross the border in the normal way at recognized checkpoints. This is, however, exactly the wrong solution.
The better way to control irregular crossings is to expand the agreement to include crossings of any kind.
Many of those who urge the suspension of the Safe Third Country Agreement imply that doing so is necessary because somehow the United States in no longer a “safe” country after the election of President Donald Trump, the suggestion being that Trump’s so-called “Muslim travel ban,” has somehow infected the asylum process. However, the fact remains that even after Trump’s election, U.S. asylum procedures remain largely unchanged.
Indeed, no less an authority than Ahmed Hussen, Canada’s current minister for Immigration, has stated that “the U.S. executive order has had no impact on domestic asylum policy. Each and every eligible asylum claimant has access to a fair hearing, and each case is assessed on its merits.”
Overlooked in the recent debate about asylum standards is the fact that many of those arriving at the Canadian border have resided without incident in the United States for some time, including many for some years. In addition, what is often left unsaid by advocates of looser border controls is that many of those arriving in Canada who claim to be fearful of the outcome of their applications in the United States are likely inadmissible to Canada, as well.
In fact, it appears that the rising tide of irregular asylum seekers is less a function of Trump’s policies than a result of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s ill-considered tweets welcoming migrants to Canada. They looked like one-upmanship against Trump; however, they gave the false impression that Canada’s border was wide open.
Ending the Safe Third Country Agreement is not the solution. Doing so would, in fact, likely increase the number of asylum seekers coming to Canada. At the same time, Canada’s asylum standards, which are quite similar to those of the United States, would probably result in an equally large number of applications being rejected. What, then, will Canada do with so many disappointed applicants at its doors?