Barutciski: The UN’s Refugee Convention finds itself at a crossroads 75 years later – because of how it’s being interpreted

Sort of inevitable that conventions get reinterpreted over time but always useful to assess that reinterpretation and the impact of these changes. But yes, empathy and understanding required in both directions:

…The 75th anniversary of the Refugee Convention offers a critical opportunity to change this unsustainable trajectory. Today, the greatest threat to refugee dignity is not domestic xenophobia, though societies must remain vigilant against it. It may be a maximalist and activist reading of the historic treaty pushed by open-border advocates that has stifled candid, pragmatic debate. 

Refugee protection can only survive if it retains the democratic support of host populations. Without it, public goodwill will continue to dry up, leaving governments to scramble with short-sighted, improvised burden-shifting schemes. 

Crucially, sovereign states are not permanently bound by expansive judicial decisions, even if it is reasonable for the interpretation of international treaty law to evolve. National parliaments possess the authority to amend domestic legislation to clarify ambiguous legal terms. By codifying precise thresholds for asylum, most legislatures can effectively override a judiciary and restore the structural parameters originally intended by the treaty.

The central predicament is that few political leaders in the West possess the courage to confront the contradiction characterizing modern refugee law. Instead, mainstream politicians maintain a facade of humanitarian concern, failing to recognize that sustainable policy requires empathy in both directions – toward needy foreigners, and toward the citizens asked to absorb them. 

Source: The UN’s Refugee Convention finds itself at a crossroads 75 years later – because of how it’s being interpreted

Nicolas | Tiers pays sûr, vraiment?

Hard to see the STCA surviving the court challenge:

…Empêcher les demandes d’asile de personnes ayant transité par les États-Unis est décrié comme un problème majeur par les défenseurs des droits de la personne depuis des années. Mais avec Trump et la violence politique de l’ICE, la situation s’est lourdement encore aggravée. Lorsque le statut de protection temporaire pour les Haïtiens prendra effectivement fin, et que les expulsions massives reprendront malgré la gravité de la situation à Port-au-Prince, comment Ottawa pourra-t-il se justifier de toujours considérer les États-Unis comme un « pays sûr » ? Et sinon, ces personnes devraient aller où, au juste ? Quelle avenue, quel avenir leur restera-t-il, encore ?”

Source: Chronique | Tiers pays sûr, vraiment?

… Preventing asylum applications from people who have passed through the United States has been decried as a major problem by human rights defenders for years. But with Trump and the political violence of the ICE, the situation has worsened even more. When the temporary protection status for Haitians actually ends, and mass expulsions resume despite the seriousness of the situation in Port-au-Prince, how can Ottawa justify still considering the United States as a “safe country”? And if not, where exactly should these people go? What avenue, what future will they have, again?”

Michael Barutciski: Gruesome beheading attempt in Belfast a warning against fast-track asylum processes

Valid concern but even thorough vetting will not catch everything and everybody:

…This is somewhat similar to the “file review” policy adopted by Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB), which was recently criticized by The Globe and Mail’s editorial board. This expedited process does involve a background check, which could result in these individuals being found in security databases, and brief interviews with immigration officers and Canada Border Services employees still occur, but experts suggest the questioning during these interviews isn’t sufficient. They believe that in-person hearings are required to probe for inconsistencies in their application details or any connections an applicant may have to terrorist groups.

Contrary to Canada, the U.K. dropped its fast-track process on July 2. British politicians appear to now recognize it was naive to establish a hearing-free process. The Canadian Parliament, on the other hand, continues to allow the IRB to maintain its distinct approach, which the UN considers a gold standard, even though critics see it as a major pull factor which makes it attractive to asylum seekers. Legislation will be needed to limit the IRB’s independence and its tendency towards overly generous procedures.”

“As western countries reform the institution of asylum, the Belfast situation should warn us of the dangers when governments tolerate porous borders and allow their generosity to be abused. The unacceptable violence of extremist protesters in response to the attempted beheading should be dealt with by police and not provide cover for ignoring legitimate concerns that were left unaddressed for too long.

Moreover, we need to stop the cosmopolitan naiveté masquerading as moral superiority: it is not xenophobic to suggest that asylum seekers who have barely been vetted could represent a potential security risk. The challenge is to develop appropriate procedures that balance humane treatment with prudence in a way that reassures local populations.”

Michael Barutciski is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and a professor at York University’s Glendon School of Public and International Affairs.

Source: Michael Barutciski: Gruesome beheading attempt in Belfast a warning against fast-track asylum processes

ICYMI: The Trump administration is deporting a million migrants. Here’s what it means for Canada

Hard to see that the STCA will survive the court challenge:

…Aisling Bondy, president of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, believes the U.S. court decisions will further strengthen the pending legal challenges against the Safe Third Country Agreement before Canadian courts.

“The U.S. Supreme Court decision shows just how bad the situation for refugees and migrants is getting in the United States, and just how much Canada is breaching our human rights obligations by not allowing people to make refugee claims at the Canadian border,” she said.

Aiken of Queen’s said this is the moment for Canada to suspend the bilateral agreement. If not, she added, Ottawa should at least amend the proposed regulations of Bill C-12 to build in more exceptions so that people could retain access to asylum based on appropriate circumstances.

Source: The Trump administration is deporting a million migrants. Here’s what it means for Canada

More Haitians will try to come to Canada after U.S. court decision, advocate says

Likely. Open data will allow tracking the numbers:

A Montreal-based advocate for asylum seekers says Canada should expect a new wave of Haitians trying to enter from the United States after a court decision allowing the Trump administration to end legal protections for migrants fleeing violence and natural disasters in Haiti and Syria.

Frantz André says he knows of several people who are making the journey north from the United States after learning of the U.S. Supreme Court decision that exposes hundreds of thousands of people to potential detention and deportation.

André says some of the new arrivals will be allowed to stay and file an asylum claim because they have close family in Canada.

Source: More Haitians will try to come to Canada after U.S. court decision, advocate says

Canada gave these former refugees a chance. Now they’re pushing back against anti-refugee claims

Of note:

…While success stories like hers are common, she said they have been overshadowed by narratives in recent years that portray refugees as a drain on Canada, rather than contributors. The surge of refugees in the country is just a reflection of the rising global displacement as a result of wars and unrest, she noted.

A 2024-25 public opinion poll by the Immigration Department found that just a third of Canadians felt that the impact of refugees on Canada was positive. Forty-eight per cent of respondents said Canada was admitting too many asylum seekers, while 41 per cent said the country was resettling too many refugees from abroad. Just over half agreed that “accepting refugees is part of Canada’s humanitarian tradition.” 

“The more you feed into this negative narrative, the more fearful society and the politicians become, and the more restrictive these policies become,” said Faizi, who was a corporate lawyer specializing in intellectual property rights, before switching to refugee law in 2021. 

That’s why the council has launched a week of action to highlight refugee contributions and show solidarity across Canada with them, leading up to the World Refugee Day on Saturday. It comes in the wake of Ottawa’s new law to restrict eligibility for asylum and rules to limit health-care coverage for refugees

The campaign — including an open letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney, highlighting local events organized by its 200 member organizations across Canada and a tool kit to promote the message “We are Better Together” — also followed a report released by UNHCR Canada in early June that looked at the social and economic benefits of welcoming displaced people in need of protection….

Source: Canada gave these former refugees a chance. Now they’re pushing back against anti-refugee claims

Critics say Canada’s new immigration and border law puts LGBTQ+ people in danger

Of note:

Earlier this week, Prime Minister Mark Carney and MPs from other political parties came together to raise the Pride flag on Parliament Hill.

But an advocacy group that helps LGBTQ refugees come to Canada and the U.S says the federal government’s new border law is putting people at risk of being sent back to countries where they face persecution.

Devon Matthews, Rainbow Railroad’s chief program officer, said her organization is concerned about its working relationship with Ottawa as the federal government reduces the number of refugees it admits and cuts the organization’s funding.

She said it’s also alarmed by a new law requiring that refugee claims be made within a year of the claimant’s first arrival in Canada.

“It has nothing to do with the reasons why someone may have waited or why someone doesn’t meet the one-year bar,” Matthews told The Canadian Press

Source: Critics say Canada’s new immigration and border law puts LGBTQ+ people in danger

Surprising drop in refugees and forcefully displaced people worldwide, UN reports

Of note:

Forced displacement from wars and persecution around the world fell for the first time in a decade, according to the United Nations refugee agency.

The latest data showed the number of people who were forced to leave their homes and remained displaced at the end of 2025 dropped by four per cent to 117.8 million from 123.2 million a year ago, the UNHCR said in a report released Thursday.

The decline reflected a sharp increase in the number of international refugees and internally displaced individuals who returned home last year in some of the countries with the largest displacement such as Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan and Syria.

In 2025, almost 5.4 million people had to flee and seek safety across borders, predominantly in neighbouring countries. The majority came from eight countries: Sudan (952,700), Ukraine (788,100), Venezuela (455,300), South Sudan (232,800), Burkina Faso (221,300), Afghanistan (191,400), Mali (177,200) and Myanmar (165,400).

Meanwhile, returns of both internationally and domestically displaced people rose by 50 per cent, reaching 14.7 million, the second highest level since records began 60 years ago. Returnees to the Democratic Republic of Congo (3.6 million), Sudan (3.6 million), Syria (3.3 million), Afghanistan (two million), Ukraine (718,300) and Myanmar (415,200) accounted for 92 per cent of all returns.

But in many cases, there’s little to celebrate….

Source: Surprising drop in refugees and forcefully displaced people worldwide, UN reports

While I was away: Refugees

Refugee articles I found interesting:

Proposal to radically change how asylum seekers are settled in Canada heard by MPs

Getting some attention but not clear whether the government prepared to go there:

Canada should consider adopting the German model of distributing asylum seekers across the country based on tax revenues and local population, a parliamentary committee has heard.

The idea would be to more fairly share the burden of settling those seeking protection.

Barutciski: Fixing our asylum-seeker policy offers a chance to show a Canada that can work together

…While our southern neighbours exhibit the opposite dynamic, with polarized red and blue states using migration to deliberately provoke each other, Canada can distinguish itself through a functioning Parliament that shows how a federation is supposed to work. Not only would the noble idea of solidarity relieve pressure in a practical sense, it would also signal that Canada remains strong at a critical time in its history.

Thousands of failed refugee claimants may be eligible to keep federal health benefits, new report finds

Brings out the usual divide between refugee advocates and those concerned about possibly incentivizing claims:

Thousands of refugee claimants who have had their cases rejected and are facing deportation may remain eligible for publicly funded health benefits, including dental coverage and counselling, according to a new report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. 

The analysis of the Interim Federal Health Program, which provides health coverage for refugees and refugee claimants until they are eligible for provincial health plans and benefits, found that the annual cost of the program reached $822-million in 2024-25 and was fuelled in part by long waits to have cases heard.

The PBO report, published on Tuesday, found that nearly 74,000 “failed refugee claimants” may remain eligible for coverage. They may be able to obtain such benefits for years if they appeal their cases, including in Federal Court. 

Dental care represented a large share of spending in 2024-25, the report found, followed by prescription medication. Urgent dental spending increased to $257-million from $30-million over five years. The cost of counselling services rose to $38.7-million in 2024-25, while home health visits cost more than $12-million.

Nadeau | «Aucun, c’est déjà trop»

Valid to discuss specifics rather than generalities:

…« On ne peut pas accueillir toute la misère du monde » : cette formule qui sert à se laver les mains me lève le cœur. Elle déplace la question pour mieux noyer le poisson. Au lieu de discuter de situations réelles — de personnes précises, de risques précis, de décisions précises —, elle remplace le problème par une abstraction gigantesque. Et face à une abstraction gigantesque, il devient toujours possible de conclure qu’il n’y a rien à faire, que c’est trop gros. Ainsi, la discussion est close avant même d’avoir commencé.

Cette rhétorique dit en réalité moins quelque chose sur la misère du monde que sur notre propre étroitesse morale. Elle exprime jusqu’où nous sommes prêts à ne pas voir la souffrance d’autrui.

L’immigration n’est pas une condition historique figée. Il suffit de peu, dans l’histoire, pour devoir chercher refuge ailleurs. Du jour au lendemain, des sociétés entières peuvent s’y trouver poussées. Entre 1880 et 1930, près de 900 000 Canadiens français ont émigré aux États-Unis pour échapper à la misère. La frontière entre ceux qui accueillent et ceux qui arrivent n’est jamais aussi claire qu’on veut bien le croire. Ceux qui parlent aujourd’hui des migrants comme de pestiférés oublient parfois qu’on peut vite devenir l’« immigrant » de quelqu’un d’autre.

Source: Chronique | «Aucun, c’est déjà trop»

Funny how the translation program is so literal on the gender of “formula” rather than using it:

…” We cannot welcome all the misery of the world”: this formula that is used to wash your hands raises my heart. She shifts the question to better drown the fish. Instead of discussing real situations — specific people, specific risks, precise decisions — she replaces the problem with a gigantic abstraction. And in the face of a gigantic abstraction, it always becomes possible to conclude that there is nothing to do, that it is too big. Thus, the discussion is closed before it has even begun.

This rhetoric actually says less about the misery of the world than about our own moral narrowness. It expresses how far we are willing not to see the suffering of others.

Immigration is not a fixed historical condition. It takes little, in history, to have to look for refuge elsewhere. Overnight, entire societies can find themselves pushed there. Between 1880 and 1930, nearly 900,000 French Canadians emigrated to the United States to escape poverty. The border between those who welcome and those who arrive is never as clear as we would like to believe. Those who today speak of migrants as plague victims sometimes forget that you can quickly become someone else’s “immigrant”.