Canadian authorities have returned more than 1,600 asylum seekers to the United States in 2025 without hearing their case for refugee protection, according to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). Many have landed in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody.
The removals are a product of the longstanding Safe Third Country Agreement, which requires anyone seeking refugee protection in Canada or the U.S. to claim asylum in the first of the two countries they reach.
I understand why they’ve had that agreement. However, it should’ve been obvious for some time now that maybe that’s an agreement they should bin? It’s blatantly obvious the us don’t treat refugees/asylum seekers the way they deserve at the moment
Legislation takes time to change when you don’t ha e a king passing edicts from the throne.
That is true
True, but I’m wondering if they’re even aware of the problem or want to fix it.
They’re actually trying to make it even harder for migrants and refugees with the introduction of Bill C-2, while pandering to the US.
Anandasangaree said Tuesday that Bill C-2 was drafted to contain “elements that will strengthen the relationship” between Canada and the U.S.
“There are a number of items in the bill that have been irritants for the U.S. so we are addressing some of those issues,” he said. “But it’s not exclusively about the United States.” CBC
It’s a bill to not only make seeking refugee status more difficult, but also remove privacy protections for all canadians.
During a technical briefing for reporters, a senior government official said that the changes were meant to improve police and intelligence agencies’ ability to apply for warrants to collect digital evidence following a series of court rulings that significantly hampered it. Article content
It would also increase the Canada Border Services Agency’s (CBSA) ability to search containers exiting the country by obligating transporters and warehouse operators to provide site access to border agents for export inspections. National post (I know…)
There’s lots of migrants rights groups speaking out against the bill: e.g. Migrants Rights Network
Oh, they are very aware. The STCA has been before the courts a few times. You can read about it here: https://ccrweb.ca/en/safe-third-country
Yep. Politicians and the kind of people that hang out with politicians seem to be behind the curve on understanding what’s happening, but even they must know this by now. The trick is that rolling it back could provoke Trump, and they’re trying to keep that to a minimum at the moment.
That being said, if Carney doesn’t fix the rules within the next year I’m going to be very disappointed. The courts will probably strike it down eventually regardless.
going to be very disappointed
What’s that look like? We don’t vote Red because we like all the policies, but because the only alternative capable of pulling even a minority would be Trump levels of disastrous for us all.
So, would “disappointment” just be a harder grimace while continuing to vote to block the blue?
I’m actually in a safe riding, on top of it all. I do activism as well, but it’s a drop in the bucket. The sweet, sweet taste of powerlessness…
Oh well. In a world of 8 billion it’s only fair.
Folks have been suing the gov about the Safe Third a country agreement since 2005 - opposition isn’t new. And yes, the courts did strike it down but the gov appealed, and it’s still under review.
The govs website about the agreement even includes a section on why the US is considered a safe country.
I think assuming they are ‘behind the curve’ is … generous.
I mean, in 2005 the US was a lot closer to Canada on multiple fronts when it comes to human rights. I’m kind of surprised that the court sided with the challengers - and not at all surprised the decision was successfully appealed in 2009, which you probably should mention.
It was successfully appealed in 2008, if we’re being picky.
The appeal was based in the fact that the judge found that the basis upon which a regulation was made (i.e. the position that the states is a safe country) does not have to be absolutely correct, so long as the gov considered if it might be true.
(See: https://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/36041/index.do)
[57] Understanding precisely what is in issue in a judicial review application is important when it comes time to determine the standard of review as well as the scope of the review that can be conducted by the Court. An attack aimed at the vires of a regulation involves the narrow question of whether the conditions precedent set out by Parliament for the exercise of the delegated authority are present at the time of the promulgation, an issue that invariably calls for a standard of correctness.
…
[60] Despite this language, the matter raised by the application is a pure vires issue (see the relevant part of the application for judicial review quoted at paragraph 15 above).
…
[78] Subsection 101(2) does not refer to “actual” compliance or compliance “in absolute terms” nor does it otherwise specify the type and extent of compliance contemplated. However, Parliament has specified the four factors to be considered in determining whether a country can be designated. These factors are general in nature and are indicative of Parliament’s intent that the matter of compliance be assessed on the basis of an appreciation by the GIC of the country’s policies, practices and human rights record. Once it is accepted, as it must be in this case, that the GIC has given due consideration to these four factors, and formed the opinion that the candidate country is compliant with the relevant Articles of the Conventions, there is nothing left to be reviewed judicially. I stress that there is no suggestion in this case that the GIC acted in bad faith or for an improper purpose.
I mentioned it was challenged back then to demonstrate that it’s been known to be problematic since the beginning.
If we want to follow along with the details there have been further challenges, started in 2017, which were on the basis that it violated the charter. The courts agreed in 2020, but again it was appealed and the court gave it’s ruling in 2023: https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/19957/index.do
I remember watching Trudeau respond to this in 2020, when he was doing his daily appearances from the governor generals cottage.
I’m not trying to shame anyone for not knowing, I get that there is a lot going on in the world and people are struggling in an individual basis too. But it really shocks me when are surprised that it’s not all sunshine and rainbows and open arms. I actually learned about it in 2017, when the PM was on TV saying canada would welcome people. Not if they are being deported from the US, I guess 🤷🏻♀️
No extraditions to USA should be allowed going forward.
Oh, Canada. How could you?
