For Real Safety, Suspend the “Safe Third Country Agreement”

The Canadian government has recently defended the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) in response to a legal challenge. The STCA is a pact made in 2004 between Canada and the United States, prohibiting individuals from entering Canada from the U.S. to plead for asylum at official border crossings. This is based on the assumption that both countries are equally safe for refugee claimants. Yet, this assumption does not hold when one considers the Trump Administration’s aggressive migrant detention policies since 2017 — which is precisely why the STCA was recently challenged in court as violating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 

The Trump Administration’s increased use of detention centres, arbitrary enforcement, and expanded expedited removal are cited as key safety concerns to U.S. refugee claimants. The detention centres themselves garnered widespread media attention this summer, as investigators found overcrowded conditions in which detainees were given inadequate medical care as well as expired food, and children were separated from their parents. However, concerns about the discrepancy between the U.S. and Canada’s treatment of refugees had been raised long before Trump’s inauguration in 2017; for example, Canada recognises gender-based persecution as grounds for a refugee claim, while the U.S. does not. Thus, someone who might have qualified for refugee status in Canada may have nevertheless been deported by the U.S. to their country of origin.

Fearing the problematic system awaiting refugee claimants in the U.S., over 50,000 people have crossed into Canada through an unofficial port of entry in Roxham Road, Québéc since 2017. This allows migrants to skirt the STCA restriction, potentially avoiding the possibility of being turned away at an official port of entry. The loophole has drawn the ire of politicians such as Conservative leader Andrew Scheer, who suggested that the entire Canada-U.S. border should be made an official port of entry, so that one could be turned away no matter where they try to enter Canada. Migration experts and border security officials have questioned the feasibility of this plan, claiming that Canada lacks the resources for the mass securitisation this entails. One expert pointed to relatively unsuccessful U.S. efforts to contain migration from Mexico, arguing that people would still try to enter Canada, only at much higher costs and at the risk of their life.

There remain concerns about suspending the STCA, such as whether its suspension would rile populist, anti-refugee sentiment by allowing dramatic increases in the refugee population. As a counter, the STCA encourages irregular migration, which is far more likely to stoke populism than the regular migration that would occur without the STCA. Polling shows that Canadians are mostly in favour of refugees, but view those that enter irregularly as “queue-jumpers” or “bogus refugees.” If the STCA were suspended, many of those engaging in irregular migration would be able to enter the country by regular migration, possibly reducing their likelihood of invoking anti-refugee sentiment.

A related concern surrounding suspension of the STCA is whether or not doing so would lead to an increase in claimants, overwhelming the Canadian immigration system. However, research shows that the overall increase would be manageable, likely being contained to a “moderate noticeable uptick.” This could be managed by the fact that suspending the STCA would allow individuals to enter through any official port of entry. Rather than straining the resources and labour to process the claimants in only a handful of rural areas, the existing capacity at official ports of entry could be able to process claimants with greater efficiency.

When Trump instituted a temporary travel ban to the United States from some Muslim-majority countries, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau tweeted, “To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada.” Yet, it is difficult to reconcile such a statement with a Canada that continues to defend the STCA. If Canada truly wants to uphold its reputation as a tolerant and diverse nation, it should start by suspending the STCA, not turning away those who come to its door in times of need.