Latest news with #STCA
Forbes
3 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
Is The U.S. Still Safe? Canada Ponders Safe Third Country Agreement
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.
Forbes
17-04-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
Is Canadian Immigration A Possible Refuge For U.S. Migrants On Parole?
As American immigration policies tighten, hundreds of thousands of migrants who once found shelter under humanitarian parole or Temporary Protected Status (TPS) now face a legal cliff. Whether fleeing war, persecution, or natural disasters—from Venezuela, Haiti, Sudan, Nicaragua, or Ukraine—many are running out of time and options. While recently a Massachusetts federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from ending the parole status of nearly half a million immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, stating that the government's early termination of the parole programs was likely arbitrary and capricious, no one can predict whether this ruling will hold once appeals are launched. Thus, with parole extensions uncertain and TPS subject to political winds, a growing number are asking where they can escape to. At least some of these migrants are considering Canadian immigration from the U.S. as a way out. So is it? The quick answer is not really, except for a very few. Here's why. Canada's immigration system, although historically generous, is now constrained. There are very few quick legal entry options for migrants currently residing in the U.S., and the process of obtaining permanent residence in Canada is complex, narrow, and selective. Nevertheless, with strategic planning and policy changes, some avenues may still be available. For many, the first challenge is to apply for a Canadian entry visa as a potential bridge to permanent solutions. Virtually all migrants in the U.S. on parole or under TPS status would require a visa to enter Canada. To obtain such a visa- whether as a visitor, student, or temporary worker- the migrant must convince Canadian visa officers at a consulate, such as those in New York or Los Angeles, that they will return home after their visit—a nearly impossible task for individuals who cannot safely return to their countries of origin, especially without permanent U.S. status. This is essentially a mission impossible. Refusals are common, even with financial support or family invitations. Canada's refugee system will not apply to most migrants arriving from the U.S. This is because, under the Canada–U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA), refugee (asylum) claims at official land border crossings are barred. However, there are some narrow exceptions—such as having a spouse, parent, or sibling in Canada, or being an unaccompanied minor. If a migrant falls into that exceptional category, they will be allowed to enter the country with proof of the exception. Otherwise, even irregular border crossings like those that were once made at Roxham Road are no longer viable. Since 2023, STCA rules apply countrywide, including to those entering outside formal ports of entry. Anyone trying to cross the border without a visa will be apprehended and returned to the United States pursuant to the STCA agreement. However, if a migrant enters Canada irregularly and then remains undetected for 14 days after their entry, they can make a refugee claim—but this is a risky and legally precarious option. This is not a great choice for most. Some migrants may already be Canadian citizens without realizing it. Those with Canadian-born parents might qualify for Canadian citizenship by descent. Applying for a citizenship certificate can open the door to full legal status, employment, and access to healthcare in Canada. Given Canada's global diaspora—including among Haitians, Ukrainians, and others—this pathway deserves greater attention. It could be a fortunate opportunity for some For those excluded from nonimmigrant options like visitor visas, student permits, and temporary work visas because they cannot demonstrate an intention to leave at the end of their authorized stay, or from refugee pathways due to restrictions imposed by the STCA agreement, only permanent residence options remain. However, obtaining permanent residence is challenging. Furthermore, timing becomes an issue since there is no immediate way to enter Canada while being compelled to leave the United States. Nonetheless, we can explore permanent resident options with the aim of eventually getting to Canada one way or another. If the migrant cannot immediately reach Canada, perhaps something could be arranged, even after a deportation, to make such an option feasible. Canada's Express Entry system prioritizes young, educated, and French-speaking applicants through a points-based model. Recent cutoffs have exceeded 500 points, making it virtually inaccessible for most applicants without at least a master's degree, work experience, or exceptional credentials and the ability to speak English. French speakers have a lower threshold to meet and may qualify with a points score in the 400s or possibly even lower. The processing time is about a year or so. Provincial Nominee Programs (PNPs) offer another route, particularly for those with job offers. However, in 2025, Canada reduced its PNP intake by 50%, and most provinces now prioritize applicants who are already living or working there. French speakers, healthcare workers, and tradespeople may have an advantage; however, without Canadian job offers or residency, most displaced migrants will not qualify. They are worth reviewing to ensure there are no opportunities, nonetheless. Migrants in the U.S. with Canadian spouses or common-law partners may be eligible for family sponsorship—a straightforward path to permanent residence, typically without income requirements. Processing is relatively fast, and approvals are frequent. Currently, spousal sponsorships from outside Canada are taking about 10 months for processing. Applications from within Canada for the same purpose are taking twice as long to be approved. However, for virtually all migrants from the U.S., the question remains: how can one wait for 10 months outside Canada if they are being driven out by the host country? They may have to return to their home country to await approvals. Other family pathways, such as sponsoring parents or adult children, are slower and more restrictive, often limited to small annual quotas or lotteries. Nevertheless, where eligible relatives exist in Canada, sponsorship remains the most promising option. Canada offers some specialized permanent residence programs, but few are accessible to displaced populations. The federal Self-Employed Persons Program—for artists, athletes, or cultural workers—is paused until 2026. This pause was implemented to address a backlog of applications and improve processing times, as stated by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). During this pause, IRCC is continuing to process existing applications and is exploring ways to reform the program in the long term. Quebec offers a similar stream, but with strict French-language and financial requirements, which makes it potentially worth exploring. Entrepreneurs may apply under the Start-Up Visa Program if backed by a Canadian incubator, but it's highly selective. Investor visas require $ 100,000 or more in capital, making them impractical for almost all displaced migrants. Still, those who have such capital may want to explore this program. Currently, Canada provides no dedicated pathway for migrants in the U.S. losing humanitarian or TPS status. Advocates have suggested exempting these individuals from the STCA, creating a specific resettlement program, or permitting private sponsorships. Thus far, no such policies have been enacted. The Canadian government has concentrated on short-term visa programs instead of long-term protection. However, with deportations in the U.S. on the horizon, this stance could shift due to public and political pressure. Nevertheless, the potential disruptions to migrants in the U.S. may generate a wave of interest that exceeds Canada's capacity to accommodate. Canada has a legacy of helping the displaced—from Hungarians in 1956 to Vietnamese in the 1970s, Syrians in 2015, and Ukrainians more recently. As indicated, while legal pathways for Canadian immigration from the U.S. remain narrow, they are not entirely closed. For now, migrants in the U.S. looking to go northward must rely on this patchwork of limited options. For the rest, the future depends on advocacy, reform, and Canada's willingness to lead once more.
Al Jazeera
07-02-2025
- Politics
- Al Jazeera
As Trump's anti-migrant push gains steam, advocates urge Canada to act
Montreal, Canada – Donald Trump has been in the White House for less than three weeks, but the United States president has already launched what many say is a concerted attack on the rights of migrants and refugees. The Republican leader has sent migrants to the notorious detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; pushed for more deportations; effectively banned asylum; and suspended the refugee resettlement programme. Trump has also used the threat of tariffs to pressure his country's neighbours — Canada and Mexico — to enact harsher measures at their respective borders to stem irregular migration into the US. For Canadian rights advocates, the Trump administration's anti-migrant policies are cause for alarm, and they have called on Canada to stop sending most asylum seekers who arrive at the Canadian border in search of protection back to the US. 'The United States government itself is becoming an agent of persecution of people within its borders,' said Wendy Ayotte, co-founder of Bridges Not Borders, a group that supports refugees and asylum seekers on the Quebec-New York border. 'When we return people to the United States as we are currently doing, … that makes us complicit with an anti-refugee regime,' Ayotte, who lives in the small Quebec town of Havelock, told Al Jazeera. 'It makes us complicit with the possibility this person will either languish in detention in poor condition or be sent back to their home country.' Canada-US border agreement This week, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that the Trump administration had agreed to a 30-day freeze on planned tariffs for Canadian goods after he made promises to tighten border security. 'Nearly 10,000 frontline personnel are and will be working on protecting the border,' Trudeau said in a social media post. 'Canada has agreed to ensure we have a secure Northern Border,' Trump added on his Truth Social platform. The Canadian government had already announced a plan to boost border security late last year, shortly after Trump first threatened to impose the tariffs. That $910m (1.3bn-Canadian-dollar) scheme included investments in drones, helicopters and other surveillance equipment. Migration at the Canada-US border also is already subject to stringent rules. In 2023, the two countries expanded what's known as the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA). Under the pact, which first entered into force in 2024, asylum seekers must seek protection in whichever of the two countries they arrive in first. That means someone who is already in the US cannot make an asylum claim in Canada unless they meet specific exemptions. The agreement previously only applied to asylum claims at official ports of entry, meaning that people who crossed into Canada irregularly could have their claims heard once on Canadian soil. But in March 2023, Trudeau and then-President Joe Biden expanded the STCA to the entirety of the border, including between ports of entry. That has made it even more difficult for people to access the Canadian asylum system. While there have been a few high-profile cases of people trying to get into the US from Canada, the numbers remain low compared with those at the US-Mexico border. In the 2024 fiscal year, US Customs and Border Protection reported just under 200,000 encounters with people trying to cross into the country irregularly from Canada. On the US border with Mexico, more than 2.1 million encounters were registered over the same period. Government says deal an 'important tool' The Canadian government has defended the STCA as 'an important tool' that helps both Canada and the US effectively manage refugee claims. 'Canada and the US continue to benefit from the STCA in managing asylum claims at our shared border, and we expect this to continue,' a spokesperson for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada told Al Jazeera in an email. 'The Government of Canada strongly discourages irregular border crossings,' the spokesperson said. 'They are illegal, risky and dangerous. We continue working with our US counterparts to respond to illegal northbound and southbound crossings along the border as part of our longstanding, collaborative efforts and mutual interest to keep our communities safe.' Rights advocates, however, said the agreement does not stop irregular migration but only pushes desperate asylum seekers to take riskier routes in their search for safety. Gauri Sreenivasan is co-executive director of the Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR), a group involved in a legal challenge against the STCA. The organisation has argued for years that the US is not a safe place for those seeking asylum. 'Certainly, the series of executive orders and the actions that we are now seeing President Trump make [have made] the US dangerously more unsafe for those seeking protections,' Sreenivasan told Al Jazeera. CCR, Amnesty International Canada and the Canadian Council of Churches have challenged the STCA on the basis that it violates the rights to life, liberty and security as well as the right to equal protection as enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled on the right to life argument in 2023, saying that while asylum seekers faced possible rights violations in the US, the STCA contained sufficient safety mechanisms to exempt people who might be at risk if sent back. But the justices sent the case back to a lower federal court to rule on the equal protection argument. A hearing is expected this year, but no date has been set, Sreenivasan said. She added that Canada does not need to wait for the courts to rule on the STCA, though. 'They should be able to assess what is happening right now under the series of [Trump] executive orders,' Sreenivasan said, 'and clearly identify that conditions are no longer safe, that there is no effective right to asylum in the US.' 'What do we stand for?' Anne Dutton, senior counsel at the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies (CGRS) at the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco, said it's 'a very concerning time for asylum' in the US. 'It's clear that the Trump administration has come in with an agenda of restricting rights and protections for migrants and asylum seekers,' she told Al Jazeera. CGRS is one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit that was filed this week against the Trump administration's effective ban on asylum claims. The ban was laid out in one of the Republican president's executive actions on the first day of his term, January 20. The order is being used 'to shut the southern border to all migrants, including asylum seekers', Dutton told Al Jazeera. 'It's really shutting off the opportunity to seek asylum right at the very first point.' In the face of that, Dutton likewise expressed scepticism that the US is a safe place for asylum seekers. 'The fact that the US is wholesale eliminating access to the asylum process for people in need of protection is a very concerning sign that the US is not actually the safe haven that the Safe Third Country Agreement imagines it to be,' she explained. She added that there are also concerns the Trump administration could enact more stringent rules and restrictions for people who are already in the US and want to access protection. 'We've seen just an overall increase in hostility towards asylum seekers and upholding our obligations to offer protection to people who need refuge,' Dutton said. 'Definitely the fear is that the second Trump administration is not only going to continue that trajectory but make it significantly worse.' Back in Canada, Ayotte at Bridges Not Borders said migration has been used as a 'political football' by lawmakers north of the border, too – and that is unlikely to change before federal elections this year. Yet she said politicians and Canadian voters alike face a critical moment. 'As Canadians we have to ask ourselves, do we want to be compliant with this? Just how far are we willing to go to comply … [with] a bully and a racist who has no concern for human life?' she said, referring to Trump.
