A little-noticed decision via a Canadian Federal Court ruling on July 22, 2020 could open the door for more American asylum seekers, in all likelihood adding undocumented immigrants to the United States, to come to Canada in the future. . The ruling found that the Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United States violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but gave the Canadian government six months to factor before the ruling was implemented. artwork. The court ruled that the agreement violated the right of asylum seekers entering Canada from the United States “to life, liberty and security of person” and was therefore unconstitutional. If the agreement, completed in the two countries in 2004 to regulate the refugee coverage formula for other people crossing the border between Canada and the United States, were to end, the result could limit the Canadian immigration formula. In fact, in addition to the steady stream of refugees arriving in the United States from locations south of the United States border, as well as elsewhere (at least prior to the Covid-19 attacks), there are some 11 million residents. Undocumented migrants living in the United States who might be interested in moving north, that is, if Trump is re-elected. Without a doubt, the resolution would have opened the door for other people to leave the United States to seek asylum in Canada.
The Safe Third Country Agreement is based on the precept that asylum seekers must apply for refugee status in the first country they arrive in and allows either country to reject a person’s asylum application if it is possible that they have already received coverage from someone else. To date, the United States is the only country designated as a third country through Canada under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. “
In her view, Judge Ann Marie McDonald discovered that the agreement was invalid because the United States no longer complies with the designation of a country for refugees. The ruling explicitly stated that the United States is no longer for refugees due to the threat of abusive imprisonment or even deportation, its freedom to apply for refugee status.
Although the ruling gave the government six months before implementing the decision, the teams that brought the case searched the government to prevent asylum seekers from returning to the United States. “It is imperative that Canada stop the return of applicants to the United States,” said Alex Neve, Secretary General of Amnesty International Canada, in a statement, adding: The Safe Third Country Agreement has been a source of serious human rights violations for many years, which were unequivocally shown in this decision. one more day cannot be allowed, and it is even more of a fear now given the prevalence of COVID. -19 in detention for migrants in the United States. “
However, the Canadian government has reaffirmed that the agreement will be valid at least until January 22, 2021, as the ruling has serious implications for Canada’s immigration policy and practices. In an upcoming announcement on 21 August 2020, Bill Blair, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, made the following additional statement:
“Today, the Government of Canada appealed to the Federal Court of Appeals because it found that there were errors of fact and law in some of the federal court’s key findings. There are vital legal principles to make a decision in this case, and it is the duty of the Government of Canada to appeal for some clarity within the legal framework governing the Asylum Act.
Since the Trump administration began tightening asylum rules, the deal has been scrutinyd through its critics. Many Canadian immigration advocates have denounced the Third Country Agreement, saying the United States is no longer a safe haven for asylum seekers. There are other problems that also want to be addressed with respect to this agreement. When adopted, Canada and the United States agreed that it would apply only to those who showed up at official border crossings. an attempt to enter Canada through legal channels was banned and returned to the United States, while others who reached so-called “irregular” or illegal border crossings were allowed to stay.
The result, at least until covid -19 hit, was a continuous flow of asylum seekers who reached “irregular” crossings on foot, by taxi and even by bus and who had to be cared for and cared for by Canadian authorities. Asylum seekers abroad waited patiently for years in their camps for treatment, while those in the United States simply crossed the border into Canada in an “irregular” way. Many Canadians saw them as abuses of the country’s immigration laws.
Few others argue that the agreement wishes to be reviewed. In this regard, the Government of Canada has stated that it “remains firmly committed to maintaining a compassionate, fair and orderly refugee coverage system. The STCA remains a comprehensive tool to achieve this, based on the precept that other people will have to apply for asylum in the first country they reach”.
For these reasons, it is by no means unexpected for the Canadian government to look pleasant in this Federal Court ruling. The resolution of the Canadian courts, and even the presidential election in the United States, will be vital in determining the final fate of the United States. This, in turn, will be the extent to which Canada will see more U. S. asylum seekers reach after the demise of the Covid-19 pandemic, i. e. whether Trump is re-elected.
I am an immigration attorney in the United States and Canada and have assisted more than 10,000 clients with legal problems. I am a member of the New York and California bar associations in the United States.
I am an immigration attorney in the United States and Canada and have assisted more than 10,000 clients with legal problems. I am a member of the New York and California Bar Associations in the United States and Ontario and British Columbia in Canada. Correspondent of Nations, published author, professional speaker and I paintings for Pace Law Firm in Toronto.