Is The U.S. Still Safe? Canada Ponders Safe Third Country Agreement

Forbes

2 days ago

When Canada signed the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) with the United States in 2004, it was widely viewed as a reasonable policy. The agreement, still in force today, requires refugee claimants to seek asylum in the first 'safe' country they arrive in—typically the United States. Because of this agreement, most individuals arriving at the Canadian border from the U.S., whether at border crossings or through irregular crossings such as at Roxham Road, are ineligible to make a refugee claim in Canada unless they meet narrow exceptions.
But the assumption of American 'safety' is now under renewed scrutiny. Ironically, the good intentions of those advocating to repeal the STCA in Canadian courts on the grounds that the U.S. no longer meets the legal threshold of a 'safe' country could lead to Canada being overwhelmed by demands it is ill-prepared to meet. Donald Trump's administration's initiation of mass deportations could once again open up a new humanitarian and logistical crisis at Canada's southern border. The more extreme President Trump's actions, the more probable the STCA will be struck down by the courts and the more plausible the likelihood that Canada could be overwhelmed with escaping migrants from America.
Human rights groups and immigration advocates in Canada argue that U.S. asylum protections have deteriorated dramatically. They cite American policies such as illegal deportations of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador, the arrest of students protesting the events in Gaza, the 'Remain in Mexico" policy, summary expulsions of migrants, and the rise of detention without due process as reasons for their concerns. Yet, Canada continues to regard the U.S. as a safe haven for refugee claimants. This, despite Canada not having publicly revealed its annual reviews of U.S. asylum practices since 2009. While it is true, there is no formal requirement for the federal government to make those reviews public, still failing to do so is inconsistent with transparency and best practices for enforcing human rights.
That being said, the cracks in that foundation are now becoming even more visible. As Trump follows through on his pledge to deport all of the 11 million undocumented immigrants, it is increasingly apparent that the effort will require using military-style raids, expanded detention camps, and massive expedited removals. With each step, the U.S. is increasingly no longer a practical haven for those fleeing violence or persecution. The more robust the deportation efforts, the more likely the result is that more undocumented immigrants will look north, seeing Canada as a last refuge.
Until now, Canada has benefited from its geographic isolation. That has served as a natural barrier to massive inward migrations. With the change in the U.S., Canada's image as a welcoming country is increasingly at odds with the reality of Canada's absorptive capacity limits. A sudden, unruly inflow of tens of thousands of refugee claimants fleeing deportation from the United States could overwhelm Canadian institutions.
Canada plans to admit 385,000 immigrants as permanent residents this year. Under Canada's Immigration Levels Plan for 2025, the target for refugees, protected persons, and individuals admitted on humanitarian and compassionate grounds is set at 68,350. This figure encompasses both resettled refugees and successful asylum claimants. That being the case, what would happen if say, even 100,000 more people attempted to cross the border in the wake of a U.S. increased crackdown on unauthorized immigrants?
It is not difficult to foresee the outcome. In terms of housing, cities like Toronto and Vancouver are already grappling with housing shortages, with thousands awaiting affordable housing. Encampments have become a visible part of the urban landscape—an emergency could make them a permanent fixture. In healthcare, Canadian hospitals are experiencing record wait times. An influx of newcomers, many of whom have untreated health issues, could further compromise service delivery. Regarding education and social services, school boards would struggle to accommodate children facing trauma, language barriers, and diverse learning needs. Food banks, shelters, and social workers are already functioning at capacity.
Legally, Canada is in a bind. The STCA was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2023, but the justices sent the case back to the Federal Court to assess whether the agreement violates equality rights under Section 15 of the Charter. The current challenge, launched by refugee advocacy organizations, argues that Canada's ongoing reliance on the STCA—without a current, transparent safety assessment is unconstitutional. The core paradox remains: if the U.S. is genuinely safe, then those fleeing Trump-era deportations should not be admissible to Canada. But if the U.S. is not safe, then Canada's continued rejection of claimants may breach its domestic and international legal obligations. Canada cannot have it both ways.
Despite fears of a mass northward migration, most undocumented immigrants in the U.S. do not meet Canada's legal definition of a refugee. Deportation, while distressing, does not itself constitute persecution. Unless claimants can prove a well-founded fear of persecution in their country of origin, they are unlikely to succeed in Canada's asylum system. While some may have valid claims based on new risks or deteriorating conditions in their home countries, the number eligible to stay would be only a fraction of those who might attempt to do so. Canada's broader immigration programs—such as Express Entry and Provincial Nominee Programs—require education, skilled work experience, language proficiency, and financial resources, all of which present significant barriers for most undocumented migrants. However, it's important to note that two-thirds of the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the USA, that is to say, 7 million, have been there for over 10 years. Given this, many of these immigrants are likely to have accumulated sufficient resources to enable them to seek refuge in Canada.
If the STCA is repealed and a surge of asylum seekers follows, the political consequences in Canada could be severe. A country proud of its humanitarian values could see its social cohesion put to the test. As services are stretched and the housing crisis deepens, public support for immigration could erode. Populist calls for tighter border control and reduced immigration levels could gain traction, challenging decades of liberal consensus. What was once an obscure bilateral treaty could become the most consequential piece of immigration policy in Canada.
Repealing the Safe Third Country Agreement with America without preparing for its consequences would be reckless. However, maintaining it without a genuine re-evaluation is equally untenable. Canada must brace itself for the prospect that the United States may no longer be a reliable partner in refugee protection. Two primary considerations arise. Firstly, what specific actions will President Trump undertake in the coming months concerning immigration in the United States? Will he intensify his current efforts, or will the courts and opposition to his initiatives stem the tide? Secondly, how long will it take for Canada's Supreme Court to revisit this issue? There remains time to plan and prepare for what lies ahead. Yet Canada must also maintain a clear-eyed perspective on what it can reasonably absorb. The path forward will necessitate not only compassion but also prudence—and a firm grasp of the limits of what even a generous nation can achieve.