Director, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Hastings Law
University of Toronto
Law Faculty
PHOTO: U of Toronto
At almost 4,000 miles, the United States’ northern border is about twice as long as the U.S.-Mexico border — much of it wild, unmarked and dangerously cold for half the year. And yet, human smuggling and deaths at the U.S.-Canada border have not been a major phenomenon, as they have been down south. Nor has Canada poured billions of dollars into a network of walls, fences, robotic dogs and militarized border patrol. It is also true that historically the number of asylum seekers and migrants seeking entry to Canada has been relatively low.
But the ills of the U.S.-Mexico border seem bound to spread northward, now that Canada reached a deal with the Biden administration to expand a 2004 agreement to repel Canada-bound asylum seekers back to the United States (and vice versa).
As U.S. policies toward asylum seekers grew harsher from 2017 on, the number attempting to enter Canada increased. Instead of appealing to its southern neighbor to do better, Canada is coordinating with the U.S. to pass the buck on the legal obligation to protect refugees, which both countries undertook when they signed the Refugee Convention and Protocol more than 50 years ago. Their current approach foists responsibility onto poorer, less stable countries that are already doing more than their share.
Both the U.S. and Canada have pursued this under a “safe third country” rule, which enables a country to return asylum seekers to a nation they have passed through on their journey if it is considered safe and deemed to have a fair process for seeking protection. That “safe third country” then has the responsibility to determine their claims.
. . . .
This has been labeled a crisis, but it simply isn’t, especially when one considers that 85% of the world’s refugees are hosted in lower- and middle-income countries. Furthermore, Canada knows how to manage refugee inflows decently when it chooses to do so: Over 160,000 Ukrainian refugees have been welcomed during the past year.
. . . .
The Safe Third Country Agreement and related policies subvert the obligations to which Canada and the U.S. are subject under international refugee law. They undermine the existing global system of protection. But most tragically, they abandon principle and humanity, and set off a chain reaction that ends up returning refugees to persecution.
Karen Musalo is a law professor and the founding director of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at UC Law, San Francisco. Audrey Macklin is the director of the Centre for Criminology and Sociolegal Studies at the University of Toronto.
**********************
Read the complete op-ed at the link.
Predictably, bad things happen when the border is closed to legal asylum seekers! Illustrating the point made by Professors Macklin and Musalo, the bodies are already being found along the Northern border. See, e.g., http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=071fc539-98b4-49fc-9656-26412f42e79b.
The obvious answer is to establish a fair, timely, generous asylum adjudication system at ports of entry and to dramatically increase the number of legal refugees who can come from countries in Latin America, particularly the Northern Triangle. If you build a functional legal refugee and asylum system refugees will use it. Why wouldn’t they?
A legitimate refugee and asylum system results in permanent admission with permission to work that leads to green cards and, eventually, citizenship for those who choose the latter. It’s quite different from ad hoc, nationality and numerically limited use of discretionary “parole” stratus. Parole status lacks transparent criteria, does not necessarily prioritize refugees and asylees as the law requires, and most seriously has no “built in” path to permanent status.
Consequently, “parolees” must either apply under a incredibly backlogged asylum system in the U.S. — thus guaranteeing delay and unnecessarily adding to the already monster backlog — or find themselves “in limbo” after two years and clearly becoming both a target and “political football” for restrictionists. And, there can be little doubt that even if the Biden parole program survives pending court challenges, it will immediately be terminated by any future GOP Administration.
Making the existing legal system work in a durable, fair, and properly generous manner to protect refugees is clearly the way to go! It would be hugely beneficial to both both the refugees and our nation! Why the Biden Administration insists on scofflaw “deterrence only” gimmicks that advance the racist/nativist agenda of the losers of the 2020 election is beyond me!
🇺🇸 ⚖️🗽 Due Process Forever!
PWS
04-02=3-23
