What is the future for Canada’s status as a safe haven for refugees?

Canada wants to alter its agreement with the U.S., which could potentially turn away thousands of refugees at its border. How has this come to pass, and what could this mean for refugees turning to what is historically one of the safer and more accommodating countries to those in need?

Ottawa has seen serious speculation that it wants to expand its agreement with Washington, which would enable it to turn away asylum seekers in the thousands. This could potentially be enforceable along all points of the shared border.

What is the STCA?

Naturally, the news that seeking asylum could become even harder for refugees has raised concerns among rights groups in Canada, which have had longstanding issues with the government’s Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA).

Amnesty International Secretary General Alex Neve opposes the agreement because it says people can claim refuge in only the country of their initial arrival. Therefore, those arriving in the U.S. cannot bypass it to then move to Canada.

However, the loophole that has so far lent itself to asylum-seekers is that anyone already on Canadian soil can file for it. As such, the country has witnessed an increase in irregular movement of thousands of migrants across the border through snowy fields, ditches, and other unofficial points of entry. In fact, in 2017, over 20,000 asylum-seekers were met by police, the vast majority entering via Quebec.

Neve believes the STCA should be lifted because of the U.S.’s attitude toward refugee protection, commenting that the Trump administration has been especially detrimental to the conditions for asylum-seekers.

Enforcing the widening of the agreement is a massive infringement on the rights of migrants, putting them in an even more unstable and fearful situation as they seek to look to the more understanding Canadian laws, as opposed to the harsher ones in the America. Refugees apparently suffer intimidation, detention, and deportation in the U.S., hence travel further afield to Canada.

How imminent is the expansion of the agreement?

It seems there are some mixed messages that the expansion is even being considered. Canada has denied it, asserting that turning the entire border into an official point of entry would create more difficulty and even be dangerous, motivating increased irregular border crossings.

Nevertheless, contradicting this, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security says it is reviewing a request from Canada to indeed review the STAC. Canadian Minister of Public Safety Ralph Goodale has perhaps side-stepped the issue by claiming “no formal proposal” has been put to the U.S.

It would not be a surprise to many, as Canada has tried to get some sort of deal in place for severalyears. If STCA were amended, it would likely be more restrictive.

According to Professor Sean Rehaag at York University, the U.S. is not incentivized to expand the agreement and decrease the number of asylum seekers moving onto Canada, particularly given Trump’s harsh approach to immigration in general. The STAC was only agreed upon initially, in 2004, because the U.S. was keen to encourage further sharing of information cross-border post 9/11.

What should happen next?

Rehaag goes further to insist that expanding the STAC will not limit how many refugees arrive in Canada, but will instead force them to cross via more treacherous routes. As it was prior to 2004, many believe the STAC should be lifted to accommodate safe entry for refugees into Canada, where it can be documented and appropriate provisions can be made.

The number of asylum seekers seems to be entirely manageable, and the right way to deal with them should be by properly funding shelters for refugees and increasing staffing at points of official entry.

This guest post is written by Kate Harveston, a writer and political activist from Pennsylvania. She blogs about culture and politics, and the various ways that those elements act upon each other. For more of her work, you can follow her on Twitteror subscribe to her blog, Only Slightly Biased.