Is the U.S. still a ‘safe' country for refugees?

Globe and Mail

2 days ago

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, tens of thousands of American citizens sought, and gained, refuge in Canada. They weren't technically refugees – most applied for landed immigrant status – but what they were seeking was, in effect, a safe place to avoid the draft during the Vietnam War.
The official policy of Canada's 'Department of Manpower and Immigration' was not to ask about applicants' military status; these were mostly young, educated, middle-upper-class men, after all – making them precisely the type of 'desirable' immigrant seen to offer benefits to Canada.
There hasn't been anything close to that major influx of American 'refugees' to Canada since then, of course, but individuals from the U.S. never stopped trying. There was a small wave when George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq sent U.S. Army deserters such as Jeremy Hinzman fleeing to Canada.
Since 2013, there have been 3,142 claims filed by asylum-seekers alleging persecution in the U.S., according to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, including 102 filed in the first three months of 2025 alone (by comparison, 118 were filed in all of 2022).
There was a significant spike in applications after Donald Trump was inaugurated for the first time, both from American asylum-seekers alleging persecution in the U.S. (869 in 2017) and from foreign nationals seeking refugee protection in Canada by way of the U.S. We can likely expect the same jump in applications now.
Canada is now trying to make the process a little bit harder. This week, the Liberals tabled an omnibus bill that, among many other things, would render ineligible for asylum those who have been in Canada for more than a year (which addresses the spike in applications from international students who filed refugee claims after the government changed student visa rules in 2024), and would prohibit those who entered Canada via an irregular border crossing to file for refugee protection after 14 days. These are necessary changes that may help to bring Canada's current four-year-backlog for refugee hearings down to manageable levels. But some people will still try.
Ottawa's proposed immigration reforms will restrict asylum seekers access to hearings
Opinion: The tightening of Canada's asylum laws was an inevitability
There are two types of would-be U.S. refugees. The first are American citizens like the draft dodgers of the 1960s and 1970s, the war resisters of the early aughts, and the anti-Trumpists of 2017 onward.
Earlier this week, The Globe and Mail reported the story of Hannah Kreager, a trans woman from Arizona, who is seeking asylum in Canada because of alleged gender-identity-based persecution in the U.S; in March, CBC News reported that a family from Illinois had made a similar claim.
These individuals cite Mr. Trump's edict on the U.S. government's official recognition of only two genders, among others, as evidence of the harms they face, but they will likely have a tough time proving their persecution rises to the level of 'serious harm,' particularly when there are regions of the United States that are far more inclusive to trans individuals than others.
The other type of refugees from the U.S. are foreign nationals seeking asylum in Canada. They might have a much better shot at staying in the country if they challenge the legitimacy of the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA).
The Supreme Court of Canada already heard a case challenging the STCA on constitutional grounds in 2023, and it essentially declared that the process of sending refugees back to the U.S., which is based on the requirement that they apply for asylum in the first safe country they arrive in, does not breach the right to life, liberty and security of the person under section 7 of the Charter.
The SCC wrote that any violations because of deportation would have to be a 'foreseeable consequence of Canada's actions' and that even though returnees face a risk of detention, there are 'mechanisms that create opportunities for release and provide for review by administrative decision makers and courts.'
'In my view,' Justice Nicholas Kasirer said, writing for the court, 'the record does not support the conclusion that the American detention regime is fundamentally unfair.'
But now, those without legal status in the U.S. are being picked up off the streets, thrown into detention centres and, in many cases, deported to third countries without a hearing. The Trump administration is doing that in defiance of court orders, as in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, and resisting even the U.S. Supreme Court, which said that the government must "facilitate" the return of those deported in error.
This matters for Canada because of the principle of non-refoulement under international law, which holds that refugees should not forcibly be returned to countries where they are likely to face cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
It used to be hard to argue that migrants sent back under the STCA would face that, but the case seems much easier to make now. Canada should prepare for another challenge to the STCA – and possibly, a different result.