Immigration detention continues in Canada despite the end of provincial agreements
Linda Mussell, Lecturer, Political Science and International Relations, University of Canterbury Jessica Evans, Assistant Professor, Sociology, Toronto Metropolitan University
Facilities where immigration detainees are held across Canada. (Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International)
While these provincial terminations signal a move in the right direction, they do not mean an end to immigration detention in Canada.
We’ve been studying the recent regional shifts in immigration detention in North America. Advocates have worked hard to place pressure on provincial governments to end their agreements with the CBSA. To maintain this momentum, action is needed at the federal level.
Immigration detention
The CBSA makes contracts with provinces to deliver immigration detention under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. This means the agency can detain permanent residents, foreign nationals and refugee claimants and has sole discretion over where detainees are held.
That might be a provincial prison, immigration detention centre, RCMP detachment, a port of entry, inland enforcement cell, immigration holding centre or federal prison.
The CBSA has sweeping powers including arrest, detention and search-and-seizure without a warrant. It is the only major law enforcement agency without independent civilian oversight to review policies and investigate misconduct.
Figures from the CBSA show that the number of immigration detainees in Canada has increased every fiscal year between 2016 and 2020. More than 32,000 people were detained during that time period. Between 2019 and 2020, 8,825 people were detained, including 136 children, 73 of whom were under the age of six.
In many cases, the CBSA has separated children from their detained parents. This is a violation of international law and goes against the best interests of the child. The CBSA does not track how many children are separated from parents.
A protest at the Surrey Immigration Holding Centre in April 2020 calling for detainees to be released during the COVID-19 pandemic. (Prisoners’ Justice Day Committee Vancouver)
Research has found that even brief amounts of time imprisoned is associated with increased stress, depression and anxiety. Migrants with mental health conditions are more likely to be detained in provincial jails and in isolation, where their conditions tend to worsen. Mental health issues become a barrier for release and are then used to justify continued detention.
Immigration detainees endure harsh conditions including solitary confinement and no set release date. Since 2013, more than 1,623 detainees have been held for longer than a year.
People from racialized communities, particularly people who are Black, are subject to profiling by the CBSA and imprisoned for longer periods.
With provinces ending agreements, the CBSA has indicated it will transfer more detainees to immigration holding centres operated by the CBSA. In our research, we have found that the CBSA is considering building more holding centres to expand its capacity to imprison people across Canada.
A graph showing where immigration detainees in Canada come from and how long they have been detained. (Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International)
Federal government must also act
New rules under the Safe Third Country Agreement came into effect in March 2023. These rules bar migrants seeking entry to Canada via the U.S. from claiming asylum after crossing the land border. They make it more dangerous for people to cross and increase the risk of being detained.
The end of provincial agreements is not the end of immigration detention. Rights violations will continue regardless of where people are held. The ability to detain people for administrative purposes, the lack of a legal limit for detention and absence of oversight are all problems that remain in place.
Importantly, this change may provide impetus for the privatization of immigration detention, something that has been raised as a concern south of the border.
Federal changes are needed to end immigration detention, including practices like solitary confinement, imprisoning families and indefinite sentences.
The CBSA released imprisoned people at unprecedented rates during the COVID-19 pandemic. There is already an Alternatives to Detention program. While the current alternative is not without problems and continues the surveillance of migrants, it’s a step in the direction of humane treatment.
There must be greater community-based case management and funding for community supports as an alternative to detention. Through community engagement, we can prioritize housing, health care and education, and help migrants and asylum-seekers navigate the bureaucratic and legal systems. The focus should be on providing support, rather than policing and imprisonment.
This article is republished from The Conversation, an independent nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. The Conversation has a variety of fascinating free newsletters.
It was written by: Linda Mussell, University of Canterbury and Jessica Evans, Toronto Metropolitan University.
Read more:
Roxham Road: Asylum seekers won’t just get turned back, they’ll get forced underground — Podcast
How smaller cities can integrate newcomers into their labour markets
Linda Mussell, Lecturer, Political Science and International Relations, University of Canterbury Jessica Evans, Assistant Professor, Sociology, Toronto Metropolitan University
THE CONVERSATION
Wed, June 14, 2023 a
The peace arch monument on the Canadian side of the Canada-U.S. border crossing, in Surrey, B.C. Several provinces will no longer allow the CBSA to detain immigrants in provincial jails.
The peace arch monument on the Canadian side of the Canada-U.S. border crossing, in Surrey, B.C. Several provinces will no longer allow the CBSA to detain immigrants in provincial jails.
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck
Despite its reputation as a refugee-welcoming and multicultural country, Canada imprisons thousands of people on immigration-related grounds every year. Many of these people are held in provincial jails under agreements between the provinces and the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA).
Several Canadian provinces are terminating their immigration detention agreements with the CBSA.
In 2022, British Columbia became the first province to review the immigration detention system and end its agreement with the CBSA. Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Nova Scotia have since followed suit. Québec and New Brunswick have also recently announced they’re ending their agreements.
Provincial jails are notorious for their poor conditions. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have found the detention of persons without criminal charges in these jails is unjust.
According to the CBSA’s data, the majority of immigration detainees posed no risk to public safety in 2021-22 .
Read more: The detention of migrants in Canadian jails is a public health emergency
Despite its reputation as a refugee-welcoming and multicultural country, Canada imprisons thousands of people on immigration-related grounds every year. Many of these people are held in provincial jails under agreements between the provinces and the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA).
Several Canadian provinces are terminating their immigration detention agreements with the CBSA.
In 2022, British Columbia became the first province to review the immigration detention system and end its agreement with the CBSA. Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Nova Scotia have since followed suit. Québec and New Brunswick have also recently announced they’re ending their agreements.
Provincial jails are notorious for their poor conditions. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have found the detention of persons without criminal charges in these jails is unjust.
According to the CBSA’s data, the majority of immigration detainees posed no risk to public safety in 2021-22 .
Read more: The detention of migrants in Canadian jails is a public health emergency
Facilities where immigration detainees are held across Canada. (Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International)
While these provincial terminations signal a move in the right direction, they do not mean an end to immigration detention in Canada.
We’ve been studying the recent regional shifts in immigration detention in North America. Advocates have worked hard to place pressure on provincial governments to end their agreements with the CBSA. To maintain this momentum, action is needed at the federal level.
Immigration detention
The CBSA makes contracts with provinces to deliver immigration detention under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. This means the agency can detain permanent residents, foreign nationals and refugee claimants and has sole discretion over where detainees are held.
That might be a provincial prison, immigration detention centre, RCMP detachment, a port of entry, inland enforcement cell, immigration holding centre or federal prison.
The CBSA has sweeping powers including arrest, detention and search-and-seizure without a warrant. It is the only major law enforcement agency without independent civilian oversight to review policies and investigate misconduct.
Figures from the CBSA show that the number of immigration detainees in Canada has increased every fiscal year between 2016 and 2020. More than 32,000 people were detained during that time period. Between 2019 and 2020, 8,825 people were detained, including 136 children, 73 of whom were under the age of six.
In many cases, the CBSA has separated children from their detained parents. This is a violation of international law and goes against the best interests of the child. The CBSA does not track how many children are separated from parents.
A protest at the Surrey Immigration Holding Centre in April 2020 calling for detainees to be released during the COVID-19 pandemic. (Prisoners’ Justice Day Committee Vancouver)
Research has found that even brief amounts of time imprisoned is associated with increased stress, depression and anxiety. Migrants with mental health conditions are more likely to be detained in provincial jails and in isolation, where their conditions tend to worsen. Mental health issues become a barrier for release and are then used to justify continued detention.
Immigration detainees endure harsh conditions including solitary confinement and no set release date. Since 2013, more than 1,623 detainees have been held for longer than a year.
People from racialized communities, particularly people who are Black, are subject to profiling by the CBSA and imprisoned for longer periods.
With provinces ending agreements, the CBSA has indicated it will transfer more detainees to immigration holding centres operated by the CBSA. In our research, we have found that the CBSA is considering building more holding centres to expand its capacity to imprison people across Canada.
A graph showing where immigration detainees in Canada come from and how long they have been detained. (Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International)
Federal government must also act
New rules under the Safe Third Country Agreement came into effect in March 2023. These rules bar migrants seeking entry to Canada via the U.S. from claiming asylum after crossing the land border. They make it more dangerous for people to cross and increase the risk of being detained.
The end of provincial agreements is not the end of immigration detention. Rights violations will continue regardless of where people are held. The ability to detain people for administrative purposes, the lack of a legal limit for detention and absence of oversight are all problems that remain in place.
Importantly, this change may provide impetus for the privatization of immigration detention, something that has been raised as a concern south of the border.
Federal changes are needed to end immigration detention, including practices like solitary confinement, imprisoning families and indefinite sentences.
The CBSA released imprisoned people at unprecedented rates during the COVID-19 pandemic. There is already an Alternatives to Detention program. While the current alternative is not without problems and continues the surveillance of migrants, it’s a step in the direction of humane treatment.
There must be greater community-based case management and funding for community supports as an alternative to detention. Through community engagement, we can prioritize housing, health care and education, and help migrants and asylum-seekers navigate the bureaucratic and legal systems. The focus should be on providing support, rather than policing and imprisonment.
This article is republished from The Conversation, an independent nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. The Conversation has a variety of fascinating free newsletters.
It was written by: Linda Mussell, University of Canterbury and Jessica Evans, Toronto Metropolitan University.
Read more:
Roxham Road: Asylum seekers won’t just get turned back, they’ll get forced underground — Podcast
How smaller cities can integrate newcomers into their labour markets
Montreal refugee advocacy groups, migrants begin 3-day protest march to Roxham Road
CBC
Sat, June 17, 2023
Protesters in Montreal took off for Roxham Road on Saturday. They will walk in three 25-kilometre stretches and are expected at the border on Monday. (Rowan Kennedy/CBC - image credit)
Despite the rain trickling down Saturday morning, about 100 protesters gathered at La Fontaine park in Montreal with plastic rain ponchos, umbrellas, signs and flags to set off on a three-day march toward Roxham Road, in the Montérégie.
Refugee advocacy groups, migrants and supporters will be walking 73 kilometres to protest the recent closure of Quebec's irregular border crossing to asylum seekers arriving in Canada from the U.S.
"It's a symbolic walk for us," said Maryne Poisson, the director of social initiatives at Welcome Collective, a group that helps asylum seekers in Montreal.
Poisson says she meets families every day that walked or hitchhiked from places like Brazil, Chile and other countries in "horrible conditions," suffering relentlessly along the way.
"So this is a super small walk, but we're doing it thinking about them," she said.
Refugee advocacy groups and migrants delivered speeches at La Fontaine park Saturday before taking off.
CBC
Sat, June 17, 2023
Protesters in Montreal took off for Roxham Road on Saturday. They will walk in three 25-kilometre stretches and are expected at the border on Monday. (Rowan Kennedy/CBC - image credit)
Despite the rain trickling down Saturday morning, about 100 protesters gathered at La Fontaine park in Montreal with plastic rain ponchos, umbrellas, signs and flags to set off on a three-day march toward Roxham Road, in the Montérégie.
Refugee advocacy groups, migrants and supporters will be walking 73 kilometres to protest the recent closure of Quebec's irregular border crossing to asylum seekers arriving in Canada from the U.S.
"It's a symbolic walk for us," said Maryne Poisson, the director of social initiatives at Welcome Collective, a group that helps asylum seekers in Montreal.
Poisson says she meets families every day that walked or hitchhiked from places like Brazil, Chile and other countries in "horrible conditions," suffering relentlessly along the way.
"So this is a super small walk, but we're doing it thinking about them," she said.
Refugee advocacy groups and migrants delivered speeches at La Fontaine park Saturday before taking off.
(Rowan Kennedy/CBC)
Claudia Aranda claimed asylum in Canada after fleeing persecution in Chile. She says refugee rights are a matter of life and death.
"I walk because human rights are rights of all people … human rights are not relative," she said.
Protesters will walk in three stretches, roughly 25-kilometres each. They will stay under church roofs overnight and are expected at the border on Monday.
Supreme Court upholds controversial agreement
The start of the journey comes a day after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) is constitutional — at least as it relates to the right to life, liberty and security.
The agreement, which came into force in 2004, stipulates that asylum seekers must make their claims in the first safe country they reach, allowing Canada to turn back most asylum seekers coming from the U.S.
Roxham Road, a well-travelled unofficial border crossing for asylum seekers, was previously exempt from this treaty, which only covered official border crossings. A renegotiation of the agreement expanded the pact in March to cover the entire land border, closing the loophole.
Lauren Lallemand, co-director of the Canadian Council for Refugees, argues the situation will only get worse now that the border is closed. She wants to see the agreement withdrawn altogether.
"We've seen that there are people who have died trying to make irregular crossings. So this isn't just a matter of an agreement, it's really a matter of life and death for vulnerable migrants," she said.
Before the new treaty went into effect, the Canadian government reported that since December of 2022, about 4,500 people were crossing through Roxham Road every month.
On Friday, the top court sided with the Canadian government which argued the U.S. is a safe place for migrants, despite groups saying they face deportation and detention there.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court did not, however, rule on whether the STCA violates Section 15 of the Charter of Rights — the section that guarantees equality under the law.
Refugee groups have argued the U.S. often denies refugee claims that cite gender-based violence as the reason for the claim.
The case was ordered back to Federal Court for a review of the policy in light of equality concerns. Poisson says there's still hope the agreement will be scrapped when it's back in court.
'Closing our borders is not the solution'
Marisa Berry Mendez, a campaigner with Amnesty International who left for Roxham Road Saturday, argues Canada must step up.
"We have international human rights obligations to respect the right to asylum," she said.
"Closing our borders is not the solution; it doesn't stop people seeking protection. It just makes them take more dangerous routes to get there."
In a statement following the Supreme Court's decision Friday, Canada's immigration minister said the government will continue to promote safe and regular pathways.
"We will continue to work with the United States to ensure that the STCA reflects our commitment with respect to our domestic and international obligations in its application," said Sean Fraser.
For her part, Poisson is hoping asylum seekers are given the opportunity to plead their case in Canada.
"We don't want them to have status right away; we want them to have a chance to be heard, to have a chance to explain why they need protection," she said.
Claudia Aranda claimed asylum in Canada after fleeing persecution in Chile. She says refugee rights are a matter of life and death.
"I walk because human rights are rights of all people … human rights are not relative," she said.
Protesters will walk in three stretches, roughly 25-kilometres each. They will stay under church roofs overnight and are expected at the border on Monday.
Supreme Court upholds controversial agreement
The start of the journey comes a day after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) is constitutional — at least as it relates to the right to life, liberty and security.
The agreement, which came into force in 2004, stipulates that asylum seekers must make their claims in the first safe country they reach, allowing Canada to turn back most asylum seekers coming from the U.S.
Roxham Road, a well-travelled unofficial border crossing for asylum seekers, was previously exempt from this treaty, which only covered official border crossings. A renegotiation of the agreement expanded the pact in March to cover the entire land border, closing the loophole.
Lauren Lallemand, co-director of the Canadian Council for Refugees, argues the situation will only get worse now that the border is closed. She wants to see the agreement withdrawn altogether.
"We've seen that there are people who have died trying to make irregular crossings. So this isn't just a matter of an agreement, it's really a matter of life and death for vulnerable migrants," she said.
Before the new treaty went into effect, the Canadian government reported that since December of 2022, about 4,500 people were crossing through Roxham Road every month.
On Friday, the top court sided with the Canadian government which argued the U.S. is a safe place for migrants, despite groups saying they face deportation and detention there.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court did not, however, rule on whether the STCA violates Section 15 of the Charter of Rights — the section that guarantees equality under the law.
Refugee groups have argued the U.S. often denies refugee claims that cite gender-based violence as the reason for the claim.
The case was ordered back to Federal Court for a review of the policy in light of equality concerns. Poisson says there's still hope the agreement will be scrapped when it's back in court.
'Closing our borders is not the solution'
Marisa Berry Mendez, a campaigner with Amnesty International who left for Roxham Road Saturday, argues Canada must step up.
"We have international human rights obligations to respect the right to asylum," she said.
"Closing our borders is not the solution; it doesn't stop people seeking protection. It just makes them take more dangerous routes to get there."
In a statement following the Supreme Court's decision Friday, Canada's immigration minister said the government will continue to promote safe and regular pathways.
"We will continue to work with the United States to ensure that the STCA reflects our commitment with respect to our domestic and international obligations in its application," said Sean Fraser.
For her part, Poisson is hoping asylum seekers are given the opportunity to plead their case in Canada.
"We don't want them to have status right away; we want them to have a chance to be heard, to have a chance to explain why they need protection," she said.
FILE PHOTO: Roxham Road, an unofficial crossing point from New York State to Quebec for asylum seekers in Champlain
Sat, June 17, 2023
By Anna Mehler Paperny
TORONTO (Reuters) - Canada's Supreme Court on Friday upheld a border pact under which Canada and the United States send back asylum seekers crossing the land border, finding the agreement does not violate asylum seekers' right to life, liberty and security of the person.
But it sent the case back to a lower court to determine whether the contested agreement violates asylum seekers' right to equal treatment under the law.
The ruling came as Canada was taking steps to more tightly manage its border with the United States. In March the two countries amended the Safe Third Country Agreement so it applies to the length of the 4,000-mile (6,440-km) land border, rather than just at formal crossings.
WHAT DOES THE RULING SAY?
The Supreme Court found that built-in "safety valves" that allow some asylum seekers to avoid being turned back in certain circumstances mean the agreement does not violate their right to life, liberty and security of the person under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
But the court also found an unaddressed question when it comes to whether the agreement violates equality rights.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
The agreement stands and the case will return to federal court to determine whether the agreement violates asylum seekers' right to equal treatment under the law.
Refugee advocates claimed the agreement violates that right because they argue the United States is less receptive to refugee claims predicated on gender.
A lower court could find in favour of refugee advocates or the government, a decision that could be appealed either way. The case could wind up back at the Supreme Court, lawyers told Reuters.
WHAT PRECEDENT DOES THE RULING SET?
It could prompt courts to pay closer attention to challenges under the equal treatment section of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, said lawyer Jamie Chai Yun Liew, who represented some of the parties intervening in this case.
"Now the court is saying, 'You should do the work.' ... By ignoring it, you're dismissing very important claims."
HOW HAVE MIGRANT MOVEMENTS CHANGED?
The expansion of the Safe Third Country Agreement is already having an impact on migrant flows into Canada. In March, Royal Canadian Mounted Police intercepted 4,173 asylum seekers on their way to file refugee claims in Canada after crossing irregularly. Last year, almost 40,000 people crossed into Canada between formal crossings to file refugee claims.
Between March 25, when the amendments took effect, and May 28, 618 asylum seekers crossed between ports of entry and were referred to the Canada Border Services Agency, according to agency figures. As many as 283 were sent back to the U.S., 247 were allowed to file refugee claims in Canada under exceptions to the agreement, and another 88 were being processed.
At the same time, the number of people caught crossing southbound into the United States spiked in March to 992 from 630 in February and stayed high in April, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol figures show.
The number of people apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol near the northern border in the first seven months of fiscal 2023, which began in October, is more than double the total for fiscal 2022, the figures show.
A Customs and Border Patrol spokesperson could not give a reason for the increase.
(Reporting by Anna Mehler Paperny; Editing by Denny Thomas and Jonathan Oatis)
Biden's plan to fix a broken border? Asylum seekers should remain in Canada
Eduardo Cuevas, USA TODAY
Sat, June 17, 2023
President Joe Biden's plan to fix a broken border just got the green light in Canada.
For months, Biden and his Canadian counterpart Prime Minister Justin Trudeau relied on their recently-hatched plan to restrict asylum seekers entering either country. But in Canada, the plan, a renegotiated Safe Third Country Agreement, faced a court challenge on the basis of whether the U.S. was in fact a safe country to return people due to its dysfunctional immigration system.
On Friday, Canada's highest court unanimously upheld in part that the agreement was safe to send asylum seekers back to the U.S., but the unanimous decision kicked back the issue of gender-based persecution, which the U.S. has not recognized in asylum claims, to a lower court.
The decision comes as liberal governments in both countries have sought to limit migrants amid mounting pressure from conservatives, while Biden has tried to walk a fine line on immigration – between opening legal pathways and border enforcement – in the run-up to the 2024 presidential election.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau greets President Joe Biden as he arrives at Parliament Hill, Friday, March 24, 2023, in Ottawa, Canada. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
The agreement with Canada better aligns the northern border with the asylum process at the southern border after Biden ended the pandemic-era Title 42 policy, once invoked by former President Donald Trump, in May. At the same time, Biden implemented new measures to stem the flow of migrants. Now, for people seeking to enter the U.S. from Canada or Mexico, they must seek asylum in the first country they set foot in, either in Canada or Mexico.
“We now have consistency between our policies at the northern and southern borders,” Muzaffar Chishti, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, a U.S. think-tank, told USA TODAY.
Chishti called the agreement a “Biden-Trudeau success,” with negotiations occurring in 2022 that now largely survived Supreme Court of Canada scrutiny with Friday’s ruling. Biden and Trudeau unveiled their agreement in late March, during Biden’s first official visit to Ottawa, to clamp down on immigration in both countries.
Still, the debate around immigration won’t end especially as people flee from their homes in Venezuela, Haiti and other parts of Central and South America, said Christopher Kirkey, the director of the Center for the Study of Canada and Québec Studies at the State University of New York at Plattsburgh.
“This Supreme Court ruling may say this agreement is valid and is consistent with the Canadian Constitution, but the truth is that’s a bit of a snapshot,” he said
“This is going to continue to be a vexing public policy issue for Ottawa and Washington,” he said.
FILE - In this Aug. 7, 2017, file photo, Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers greet migrants as they enter into Canada at an unofficial border crossing at the end of Roxham Road in Champlain, N.Y. A Canadian court on Wednesday, July 22, 2020, invalidated the country's Safe Third Country Agreement with the United States. Under the agreement, immigrants who want to seek asylum in Canada at ground ports of entry from the United States are returned to the U.S. and told to seek asylum there. But if they request asylum on Canadian soil at a location other than an official crossing, the process is allowed to go forward.
(AP Photo/Charles Krupa, File)
What's the Safe Third Country Agreement between US and Canada?
The 2004 Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) allows the U.S. and Canada to turn away asylum seekers from either country because both were designated as “safe” countries to send people. Under the agreement, Canadian officials could return asylum seekers seeking to enter their country from the U.S., and vice versa.
For two decades, the agreement had a loophole that allowed asylum seekers to enter Canada from the U.S. via irregular ports of entry, such as at Roxham Road, a remote path in Upstate New York that passes forests and farms leading to Quebec. Roxham Road became a pathway for tens of thousands of people for two decades to cross into Canada, which led to upsurges in people crossing at the rural road from the U.S.
Why are migrants headed to the northern border?
The Trump administration enacted hardline immigration policies such as moving to end Temporary Protected Status, resulted in thousands of people – many from Haiti – heading to Canada for asylum. The waves of asylum seekers have shifted from continents and countries, though many have chosen to leave a backlogged U.S. immigration system that takes years to get in front of an immigration judge.
In contrast, Canada has been seen as more welcoming and easier to resettle in the diverse country of 40 million people.
Migrants gather in an informal camp in El Paso, north of the Rio Grande and south of the border wall near Gate 40, on May 5.
During Biden's visit to Canada, he and Trudeau announced they would tighten the agreement to turn away irregular crossings, forcing people to regular ports of entry to make their claims under limited exceptions allowing them to enter. Under the new deal, Canada agreed to offer 15,000 more people from Western Hemisphere countries to seek asylum.
The agreement took effect March 25 at midnight, a day after Biden and Trudeau announced their new deal, officially closing Roxham Road. However, the two countries signed the expanded policy a year ago, as early as March 2022, per U.S. Federal Register rulemaking.
In 2022, close to 40,000 people crossed into Canada from the U.S. seeking asylum, according to Royal Canadian Mounted Police figures. Experts have noted nearly all came via Roxham Road, into Quebec.
In 2023, crossings into Canada, nearly all through Quebec, totaled more than 4,000 each month. But by April, the first full month the new agreement took effect, it dropped to 85 people.
Early in 2023, the U.S. saw increases in people crossing from Canada near a remote stretch of border from New Hampshire to New York, prompting outcries from House Republicans who formed the Northern Border Security Caucus.
Observers have warned that the new agreement, in closing Roxham Road, will force people to make more dangerous treks into either country, much like the border with Mexico.
The numbers at the northern border are far fewer than the southern border. The 2022 fiscal year saw U.S. border agents encounter 109,000 people at the northern border, compared to 2.3 million at the southern border.
How was the agreement challenged?
Canadian immigrant advocates and some left-leaning politicians questioned whether the U.S. was indeed a safe country under Canadian law because of the American process to claim asylum and the conditions of immigration detention systems that migrants often face when they’re rejected from Canada.
Conservative Canadian politicians and officials in French-speaking Quebec, meanwhile, have sought to clamp down on border crossings. Quebecois officials have complained about the disparate burden their province faced in accommodating asylum seekers.
The agreement faced court challenges for violating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by sending people to the U.S., which often places migrants in immigration detention or deports them to the country they fled. The Supreme Court of Canada heard oral arguments in October.
“The Supreme Court holds the regulations designating the United States as a safe third country do not infringe refugee claimants’ rights to liberty and security of the person,” the Supreme Court's brief read.
The court upheld the basis that the U.S. was a safe country, though allowed the appeal in part, which said “refugee claimants may be exempted from return to the United States” if their charter rights for liberty and security were at risk.
Families of asylum seekers are led into the Ramada hotel in Yonkers May 15, 2023. The families were being housed in New York City.
What else did the court decide on?
In the unanimous court decision, Justice Nicholas Kasirer wrote that designating the U.S. as a safe third country doesn’t breach the charter. However, he did agree with the risk of detention of migrants returned to the U.S., and with some aspects of detention conditions. The court returned the issue of gender-based persecution, which advocates say the U.S. flouts international refugee standards, back to the lower federal court.
“We have to ensure this is not a race to the bottom,” said Maureen Silcoff, a Toronto immigration attorney who co-counseled to intervene in the case on behalf of the Canadian Association for Refugee Lawyers. “We see in multiple countries and regions that the door is being sealed, but we have to act in accordance with international standards, not what’s politically expedient at the moment.”
Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) speaks on border security and Title 42 during a press conference at the U.S. Capitol on May 11, 2023 in Washington, DC.
In the unanimous court decision, Justice Nicholas Kasirer wrote that designating the U.S. as a safe third country doesn’t breach the charter. However, he did agree with the risk of detention of migrants returned to the U.S., and with some aspects of detention conditions. The court returned the issue of gender-based persecution, which advocates say the U.S. flouts international refugee standards, back to the lower federal court.
“We have to ensure this is not a race to the bottom,” said Maureen Silcoff, a Toronto immigration attorney who co-counseled to intervene in the case on behalf of the Canadian Association for Refugee Lawyers. “We see in multiple countries and regions that the door is being sealed, but we have to act in accordance with international standards, not what’s politically expedient at the moment.”
Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) speaks on border security and Title 42 during a press conference at the U.S. Capitol on May 11, 2023 in Washington, DC.
Biden restricts asylum claims at both borders
The updated agreement complements Biden administration policies at the United States’ other border, which has seen an influx of people seeking asylum, many from Venezuela and parts of South America.
In May, the U.S. ended Title 42, a public health law implemented by Trump during the COVID-19 pandemic to restrict people from entering the U.S., including with asylum claims.
For two years, Biden kept the policy in place before recently returning to prior immigration law that allows asylum seekers to present credible fears with asylum officers or before an immigration judge. The administration also now uses expedited removal for people who enter the U.S. without permission. Now, people seeking asylum are expected to use an app to schedule an appointment at ports of entry.
Eduardo Cuevas covers race and justice for the USA TODAY Network of New York. He can be reached at EMCuevas1@gannett.com and followed on Twitter @eduardomcuevas.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Biden's deal to keep migrants out of US greenlit by Canada court
The updated agreement complements Biden administration policies at the United States’ other border, which has seen an influx of people seeking asylum, many from Venezuela and parts of South America.
In May, the U.S. ended Title 42, a public health law implemented by Trump during the COVID-19 pandemic to restrict people from entering the U.S., including with asylum claims.
For two years, Biden kept the policy in place before recently returning to prior immigration law that allows asylum seekers to present credible fears with asylum officers or before an immigration judge. The administration also now uses expedited removal for people who enter the U.S. without permission. Now, people seeking asylum are expected to use an app to schedule an appointment at ports of entry.
Eduardo Cuevas covers race and justice for the USA TODAY Network of New York. He can be reached at EMCuevas1@gannett.com and followed on Twitter @eduardomcuevas.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Biden's deal to keep migrants out of US greenlit by Canada court
No comments:
Post a Comment