Under the agreement, people claiming refugee status must submit their claim in the first country they arrive in, between the United States or Canada, unless they qualify for an exemption. For example, refugee claimants who are citizens of a country other than the United States and who arrive from the United States at the Canada-U.S. land border can only make their refugee claim in Canada if they complete an exemption under the Safe Third Country Agreement. In November 2020, the Trump administration issued provisional final regulations to implement the agreements with Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. Since then, the United States has deported Honduran and Salvadoran asylum seekers to Guatemala and returned at least 1,000 adults and children to the country. While the decision focused specifically on the cruel and harmful detention practices of the United States that punish people seeking safety, a variety of recent measures have virtually ended the right to seek asylum in the United States. In this virtual briefing, our panelists discussed the implications of the decision, its impact on the prolonged detention of asylum seekers, and other attempts to outsource U.S. asylum obligations (including the Remain in Mexico program and the multitude of recent illegal asylum agreements with Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras), and discussed how the United States is its reputation as a safe haven for asylum seekers. can restore. The briefing also included opening remarks by Congressman Joaquin Castro, who has defended the right to seek asylum and led several congressional investigations related to access to asylum and detention practices. However, due to ongoing changes in asylum law in the United States and immigration and refugee law in Canada, the conclusion of the agreement was delayed.38 In 1996, the United States passed its Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Accountability Act. Canada`s new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act received Royal Approval on November 1, 2001. Of course, not all asylum applications are accepted.

Some asylum seekers may not meet the legal definition of a refugee. In other cases, errors or injustices occur in a country`s assessment of the asylum claim. For a variety of reasons, some asylum seekers go through several countries and apply in more than one of them. The Trump administration is methodically dismantling the U.S. asylum system to reduce immigration to the United States. One of the most devastating changes the government has introduced is the negotiation of agreements with Central American countries, according to which asylum seekers traveling through a country must first seek protection there. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) requires the ongoing review of all countries designated as safe third countries. The objective of the review process is to ensure that the conditions that led to classification as a safe third country continue to be met.

Also in Budget 2018, the Canadian government provided approximately $100 million to IRCC, the CBSA, the RCMP and other affected departments over a two-year period to address operational pressures arising from irregular migration.92 This funding assisted „in the receipt of new refugee claims, initial security screening procedures, admissibility processing, deportation of unholded applicants, and detention and detention and detention. Support the deportation of those who pose a risk to the safety of Canadians. 93 Guatemala as a „safe third country”: The Trump administration has entered into a „safe third country” agreement with Guatemala that would require asylum seekers traveling through Guatemala to the United States to first seek asylum in Guatemala. Ahmed Hussen, speaking as Canada`s minister at IRCC, said the terms of the Safe Third Country Agreement remained respected. The governing Liberal Party of Canada has announced no plan or intention to suspend the agreement. [21] Just as Bill C-55 established the legal basis for classifying a country as safe for the purposes of the refugee determination, it was argued that it „also laid the groundwork for broadening the legal scope of `Canada` for refugee claimants” by pushing back Canada`s borders and „excluding any refugee determination for a country that was considered safe, or on behalf of a person, who have travelled through a safe country.” 34 The agreement was signed in Washington, D.C. on 5 December 2002 by Bertin Côté (Deputy Head of Mission, Embassy of Canada) and Arthur E. Dewey (Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration, United States Department of State). In February 2017, more and more refugee claimants began crossing the Canadian border at locations other than official border checkpoints. To avoid the impact of the agreement, all refugees at a border crossing would be automatically returned to the United States under STCA regulations. [24] Given that it is not illegal under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act or related regulations to cross the border outside a port of entry as long as the person immediately presents himself or herself to a Canada Border Services Agency official and the CASS does not apply to applications made outside a port of entry, individuals who are not otherwise eligible may be able to apply after an irregular passage.

[25] In some cases, these refugees have been amputated due to frostbite[23] and concerns have been raised that some refugees may freeze to death while crossing the border. [26] The STGB only applies to refugee claimants who want to enter Canada from the United States. at a port of entry.9 Persons who make a claim in one of the two countries will not be deported to another country until that person`s claim has been established. An agreement with El Salvador: The Salvadoran government has agreed to accept asylum seekers returned from the United States. Under the agreement, any asylum seeker who is not a citizen of El Salvador could be returned to El Salvador and forced to apply for asylum there. Refugees are people who flee their country for a justified fear of persecution. Once refugees arrive in another country and seek asylum, international law protects them from being returned to face serious threats. If all of these agreements are implemented as planned, tens of thousands of asylum seekers traveling to the United States from the Northern Triangle will be arrested at the southern border of Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador or Mexico. And people migrating from outside the Northern Triangle are essentially required to seek asylum from the south of the Honduras-Nicaragua border. Proponents of safe third country agreements suggest that such agreements are necessary to prevent refugee protection seekers from „shopping” for a specific or preferred destination country. According to a researcher at the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform, the concept of a safe third country is based on the following principle: the constitutionality of the safe third country provision was first challenged in 1989, immediately after the coming into force of the amended Immigration Act, in 1976 and more than a decade before the implementation of the Canada-United States Act. In Canadian Council of Churches v.

Canada,63 the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the challenge on the grounds that the Canadian Council of Churches was not eligible. In other words, the Court held that this type of challenge should be fought by asylum seekers who considered that their rights had been violated and not by an organisation wishing to present arguments of general interest. To date, the United States is the only designated safe third country. Agreement with Honduras: In a series of agreements with the Honduran government, the Trump administration has sought to curb migration from the region to the United States. In an agreement similar to those signed by the governments of Guatemala and El Salvador, the United States could return asylum seekers to Honduras if they cross the country without first seeking asylum. Under the agreement, asylum seekers are required to apply for refugee protection in the first safe country they arrive in, unless they are eligible for an exemption from the agreement. IrPA requires the federal government to continuously review countries designated as safe third countries to ensure that the conditions that led to the initial designation continue to be met.10 For example, a series of human rights violations by a safe third country could result in a change in its designation. According to the most recent June 2015 guidelines, the Minister must continually review the factors listed in subsection 102(2) of the IRPA with respect to the United States.11 With the coming into force of the STCA between Canada and the United States in December 2004, both governments have faced several challenges. First, as stated in the agreement itself, a review of its implementation was to be carried out in the first year. In addition, since its inception, the STCA has been the subject of criticism and several legal challenges, as described below.

.