ICYMI – Saunders: A better way to manage the border after the collapse of the Safe Third Country Agreement

More practical than most of the other ideas floated. The Biden administration’s similar approach was starting to deliver results:

…A new, simplified and better-designed version of Safe Mobility should be launched, in the hands of Canadians in partnership with our southern neighbours who share the same problems. It might be online-only or phone-based at first, and widely publicized among migrant communities.

It would allow prospective migrants and refugees, including those living in the United States and along the road in the Americas, to have their case considered and their background screened before coming to the border. Worldwide experience shows that most migrants prefer to apply for legal programs even if there’s only a slight chance of succeeding, rather than the vast expense and mortal danger of overland migration and smuggling. If rejected, they mostly apply for somewhere else, rather than trudge further north.

A new study by the Denmark-based Mixed Migration Centre proposes Safe Mobility schemes as one of the best ways to end human smuggling. They’re considered the best solution to Britain’s and Europe’s boat-migration crises. I recently conducted a study of migration-governance initiatives for a report by the Canadian Council for the Americas on improving Canada-Latin America relations, and found a big appetite for Safe Mobility schemes across the hemisphere.

Best of all, they could be launched without the participation of the United States – even while the STCA still exists. They’re the best way to take pressure off our border, now that Washington isn’t helping.

Source: A better way to manage the border after the collapse of the Safe Third Country Agreement

Immigration Minister warns foreign nationals to not abuse asylum system as U.S., U.K. tighten rules

Right message but unlikely to have much impact, just as the impact of former PM Trudeau’s 2017 infamous ‘To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada,’ was overstated:

…Asked about the implications for Canada, Ms. Metlege Diab warned asylum seekers against trying to take advantage of the Canadian system.

“If you’re coming just because you think it’s a way to side-step our system, don’t do that,” she said in her first major interview since taking on the role.

“We are telling people, no matter who you are, where you are, the asylum system in Canada is here to protect those that desperately are [in need], not for everyone,” she said. 

She said the borders bill, also known as Bill C-12, which is now going through Parliament, would “tighten up” the asylum system and “ensure that those that are not eligible to apply are weeded out earlier.” 

The bill, which would ban those who have been in the country for more than a year from claiming asylum, will “signal to the global community that Canada is not here for people to take advantage of,” she said.

Canada is known for its humanitarian efforts, and should “protect those that really need protection,” she said. But the country is also dealing with “capacity issues,” such as the availability of housing and health care. 

In this year’s immigration targets, Ottawa dramatically cut the number of international students it plans to admit and effectively froze the numbers of permanent residents over the next three years. The cuts followed waning support among Canadians for increasing immigration in recent years. 

Ms. Metlege Diab said “the mood of the country, going door to door,” has changed….

 Source: Immigration Minister warns foreign nationals to not abuse asylum system as U.S., U.K. tighten rules

Canada should pull out of refugee pact with U.S. over Trump policies, says former Liberal foreign minister [Axworthy]

Not surprising that Axworthy would make that call. Substantively correct, of course, on his assessment of USA Trump administration policies. But impact would be huge and already dwarf the immigration and asylum systems, already subject to backlogs and considerable strain:

Former Liberal foreign minister Lloyd Axworthy says Canada should pull out of a long-standing refugee pact with the United States that leads to most asylum seekers arriving at the Canadian border being turned back. 

Mr. Axworthy, who is standing down as chair of the World Refugee & Migration Council on Thursday, said in an interview that President Donald Trump’s erosion of the rights of migrants in the U.S. means the country should no longer be considered a safe country for Canada to return asylum seekers to.

The Safe Third Country Agreement with the U.S. took effect in 2004 and was later expanded to include not just official ports of entry but the entire land border. Under its terms, asylum seekers must claim refugee protection in the first of the two countries they arrive in. 

Most asylum seekers will be sent back if they arrive at the Canadian border after having first gone to the U.S., although there are exceptions, including forpeople facing the death penalty. 

Mr. Axworthy said Canada no longer has shared values with the U.S. under Mr.Trump. He said that “evidence is produced daily on every American newscast” that it is no longer a safe country for asylum seekers to return to.

“I mean, massive deportations without any due process. Clearly, major restrictions on who can come, a system in which there is virtually no appeal. The whole process of law has been shelved, if not totally put in the dumpster,” he said. …

Source: Canada should pull out of refugee pact with U.S. over Trump policies, says former Liberal foreign minister

Border bill would leave dissidents who visited Canada in the past at risk: experts

Valid concern but how to have an exception from the general rule with a definition and process that separates significant dissidents from some who make claim but have less legitimate fears:

Dissidents, human-rights activists and journalists being persecuted by foreign regimes could find themselves unable to get asylum hearings in Canada under planned immigration changes, refugee experts warn. 

They are calling on the federal government to create an exception in Bill C-2, the Strong Borders bill, so dissidents can find safe haven here. 

As it is currently worded, the bill would exclude dissidents and others from hearings at the Immigration and Refugee Board if they came to Canada more than a year before their claim.

Many – including political opponents of authoritarian regimes – may have visited Canada to attend meetings, speak at summits or give lectures, the experts warn. 

Bill C-2, which is going through its parliamentary stages, aims to tighten up immigration rules and is likely to cut the total number of asylum claims. It would put people who have been in Canada for more than a year on a fast track to deportation. 

The bill specifies that the one-year period “begins on the day after the day of their first entry.” 

Lawyers said a “first entry” would include any previous visit to Canada, including a holiday here. 

“Unlike the U.S. approach, where the one-year rule generally applies based on the most recent entry and includes exceptions, the Canadian version is broader and more rigid,” immigration lawyer Warda Shazadi Meighen of Toronto law firm Landings LLP said in an e-mail.

“This has troubling implications. It would apply to individuals who came to Canada years ago for reasons entirely unrelated to their current need for protection – as children on holiday, students, guest speakers or attendees at international conferences. 

“These are often the same people – foreign dissidents, human rights advocates, journalists and LGBTQ+ individuals – who later flee genuine and escalating persecution from authoritarian regimes. Their prior, often innocent, engagement with Canada could now preclude them from seeking asylum here.”

Ms. Shazadi Meighen urged the government to create “a clear carve-out for dissidents and others fleeing political violence or state persecution, or at minimum a discretionary mechanism with procedural safeguards for those who fall outside the one-year window due to past presence but now face genuine risk.” 

Gauri Sreenivasan, co-executive director of the Canadian Council for Refugees, called the one-year bar being proposed in Bill C-2 “a dangerous step that actually undermines safety for many in Canada.”

“For example, those that travelled to Canada as children, or someone that came to Canada previously as a renowned journalist, academic or human-rights defender to share their expertise and is later under threat in their country for this very reason could be arbitrarily denied access to safety due to their earlier visit; it defies logic,” she said. “There should be no time limit on the right to seek protection in or at our borders.”

Fen Osler Hampson, president of the World Refugee and Migration Council, said the wording of the bill’s clauses on asylum could have far-reaching, unintended consequences.

“In legislative drafting, every word and comma counts and the government should scrutinize every word, sentence and paragraph in new legislation carefully, not just in terms of their intended consequence and professed objectives, but also their potentially unintended consequences, which, in this particular instance, are profound and unintentionally discriminatory,” Mr. Osler Hampson, who is also professor of international affairs at Carleton University in Ottawa, said in an e-mail. 

Source: Border bill would leave dissidents who visited Canada in the past at risk: experts

Davantage de demandeurs d’asile en Ontario, mais moins de débats?

Good long read in Le Devoir contrasting Ontario and Quebec, featuring comments by Mireille Paquet and me:

Depuis maintenant près de deux ans, le gouvernement de François Legault réclame une meilleure répartition des demandeurs d’asile au Canada. L’un de ses arguments phares, répété récemment par le ministre de l’Immigration, Jean-François Roberge, est le fait que le Québec accueille plus de demandeurs d’asile que sa part démographique dans le Canada.

En d’autres mots, la province représente 22 % de toute la population canadienne, mais compte 40 % de tous les demandeurs d’asile sur son territoire, selon Statistique Canada.

C’est vrai, mais c’est aussi le cas en Ontario. Bon an mal an depuis au moins 2021, la province voisine compte sur son territoire près de la moitié des demandeurs d’asile au pays, alors que son poids démographique est de 39 %. Les données montrent ainsi une histoire légèrement différente du récit politique.

Ainsi, même lorsque Québec a transféré des demandeurs d’asile par autobus, surtout vers l’Ontario, à partir de l’été 2022 et plus intensivement à l’hiver 2023, la province voisine comptait déjà entre 46 % et 49 % de tous les demandeurs au pays.

Le Québec a bel et bien reçu plus de demandes d’asile que son voisin pendant plusieurs années depuis 2017 ; mais l’Ontario l’a aussi dépassé en 2021, en 2024 et pour les quatre premiers mois de 2025. Les arrivées sont donc à distinguer du nombre de personnes présentes ou réellement installées dans une province.

Le phénomène est aussi plus complexe, car il s’étend souvent dans une migration secondaire : les demandeurs en question peuvent atterrir au Québec ou franchir la frontière vers la province, mais ensuite se déplacer vers l’ouest. Le Devoiravait déjà révélé qu’entre 25 % et 33 % des demandeurs d’asile avec une première adresse au Québec déménageaient ensuite dans une autre province.

Politisation

Le premier ministre de l’Ontario, Doug Ford, a beau avoir essayé de faire des vagues autour des permis de travail pour les demandeurs d’asile au Conseil de la fédération en juillet, il s’est rétractéune semaine plus tard. Il faut dire que la délivrance des permis de travail est maintenant beaucoup plus rapide qu’en 2022 ou en 2023, c’est-à-dire en 45 jours, a confirmé au Devoir Immigration, Réfugiés et Citoyenneté Canada.

M. Ford a aussi formulé le souhait d’avoir plus de pouvoirs en immigration, notamment en 2022 pour pouvoir accueillir plus de travailleurs qualifiés — et non moins. S’il l’a mentionné au détour d’une ou deux conférences de presse, il n’a pas utilisé le dossier dans un bras de fer avec Ottawa, contrairement au Québec, où les échanges sont même devenus plutôt acrimonieux.

Pour Mireille Paquet, professeure à l’Université Concordia, difficile de dire si l’on en parle réellement moins en Ontario qu’au Québec, puisqu’elle ne connaît pas d’études sur cette question précisément. « On en parle certainement différemment », affirme-t-elle toutefois, reconnaissant une politisation de l’immigration propre au Québec.

Ses recherches montrent que les questions migratoires sont en effet de plus en plus politisées dans l’espace politique québécois, et plus clairement depuis le scrutin de 2018, qui a porté la Coalition avenir Québec au pouvoir. « Le gouvernement provincial a décidé de s’emparer de cette question et d’en faire un enjeu de revendication auprès du fédéral », observe-t-elle.

« Et cela se reflète aussi dans la manière dont le public réfléchit à ces questions : plus on parle du fait que les demandeurs d’asile créent des pressions sur les services, plus on augmente l’anxiété dans la population — que ce soit à tort ou à raison, ce n’est pas à moi de le dire. »

C’est aussi que la province voisine s’est « rapidement désengagée de ce dossier », signale-t-elle. Quand les arrivées ont commencé à s’accélérer plus clairement au chemin Roxham en 2017, « l’Ontario a essayé de se mobiliser, mais a dit rapidement que c’est un domaine de compétence fédérale : on ne s’en mêle pas ».

L’enjeu est alors retombé plutôt sur le gouvernement local à Toronto qui a à son tour réclamé du financement à Ottawa, sans que Queen’s Park soit impliqué.   

Étude comparative

Une rare comparaison a été réalisée par les chercheuses Audrey Gagnon et Lindsay Larios, qui ont utilisé les plateformes électorales et la couverture médiatique du Toronto Star et de La Presse entre 1987 et 2018 dans leur analyse.

Fait intéressant : les deux autrices notent qu’au début des années 2000, les politiques d’immigration étaient davantage discutées pendant les campagnes électorales en Ontario qu’au Québec. Mais cette relative importance a diminué à partir de 2010, « peut-être parce que la politisation n’a pas apporté beaucoup de bénéfices électoraux », indiquent-elles dans leur article publié en 2021 dans le Canadian Journal of Political Science.

La trajectoire du Québec montre plutôt une plus grande importance à partir de 2003, en croissance jusqu’à 2018. Ce sont les tensions autour de l’intégration, ainsi qu’une polarisation plus grande, surtout à partir de l’affaire Hérouxville en 2007. Ce n’est qu’ensuite que les candidats aux élections québécoises « ont su exploiter l’inquiétude de la province concernant la préservation de sa langue et de sa culture ».

En Ontario, « la présence des nouveaux arrivants n’est pas considérée comme une menace pour l’identité culturelle, mais plutôt comme une partie intégrante de celle-ci », écrivent-elles.

Le ton et les arguments

« Au Québec, l’attention est plus soutenue qu’épisodique, à cause des questions identitaires », note aussi Andrew Griffith, ancien directeur général au ministère fédéral de l’Immigration.

« Oui, il y a eu un changement notable dans l’opinion publique au Canada, mais on y communique surtout en termes de besoins en logement, et pas de peurs », note celui qui est aussi un associé de l’Institut Environics. Au Québec, le mot « menace » a été associé explicitement à « demandeurs d’asile » par le ministre Roberge dès février 2024, avant qu’il ne soit à l’immigration.

C’est donc sur le fond et sur le ton que les débats sont différents, observe M. Griffith. Mais cette attention n’a pas que du mauvais, au contraire. Dans le reste du Canada, il était presque tabou de parler d’immigration pendant longtemps : « C’est compréhensible, mais c’est aussi malsain. J’ai toujours pensé qu’il était souhaitable d’avoir une discussion basée sur des faits et de réfléchir aux impacts de l’immigration. »

Les demandeurs d’asile étaient aussi en quelque sorte « plus visibles » au Québec. D’une part, parce que les arrivées à la frontière terrestre par le chemin Roxham ont marqué l’imaginaire dès 2017. Mais aussi parce qu’ils se concentrent ensuite surtout à Montréal, alors qu’ils sont plus dispersés en Ontario dans des agglomérations urbaines comme Ottawa, London, Niagara, Waterloo, York, Durham, Peel et Hamilton.

Dans les dernières années, d’autres questions ont également été politisées avant en Ontario, conclut néanmoins Mme Paquet, notamment celle des étudiants internationaux et des collèges privés.

Source: Davantage de demandeurs d’asile en Ontario, mais moins de débats?

For almost two years now, François Legault’s government has been calling for a better distribution of asylum seekers in Canada. One of its key arguments, recently repeated by the Minister of Immigration, Jean-François Roberge, is the fact that Quebec welcomes more asylum seekers than its demographic share in Canada.

In other words, the province represents 22% of the entire Canadian population, but has 40% of all asylum seekers in its territory, according to Statistics Canada.

It’s true, but it’s also the case in Ontario. Good year bad year since at least 2021, the neighboring province has on its territory almost half of the asylum seekers in the country, while its demographic weight is 39%. The data thus show a slightly different history of the political narrative.

Thus, even when Quebec transferred asylum seekers by bus, especially to Ontario, from the summer of 2022 and more intensively in the winter of 2023, the neighboring province already had between 46% and 49% of all applicants in the country.

Quebec has indeed received more asylum applications than its neighbor for several years since 2017; but Ontario has also surpassed it in 2021, in 2024 and for the first four months of 2025. Arrivals are therefore to be distinguished from the number of people present or actually settled in a province.

The phenomenon is also more complex, because it often extends into a secondary migration: the applicants in question can land in Quebec or cross the border to the province, but then move west. Le Devoir had already revealed that between 25% and 33% of asylum seekers with a first address in Quebec then moved to another province.

Politicization

Ontario Premier Doug Ford may have tried to make waves around work permits for asylum seekers at the Federation Council in July, but he retracted a week later. It must be said that the issuance of work permits is now much faster than in 2022 or 2023, i.e. in 45 days, confirmed to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.

Mr. Ford has also expressed the desire to have more powers in immigration, especially in 2022 to be able to accommodate more skilled workers – and not less. If he mentioned it at the turn of one or two press conferences, he did not use the file in a tug-of-war with Ottawa, unlike in Quebec, where the exchanges even became rather acrimonious.

For Mireille Paquet, a professor at Concordia University, it is difficult to say whether we really talk about it less in Ontario than in Quebec, since she does not know any studies on this issue precisely. “We certainly talk about it differently,” she says, however, recognizing a politicization of immigration specific to Quebec.

His research shows that migration issues are indeed increasingly politicized in Quebec’s political space, and more clearly since the 2018 election, which brought the Coalition avenir Québec to power. “The provincial government has decided to seize this issue and make it a challenge with the federal government,” she observes.

“And this is also reflected in the way the public thinks about these issues: the more we talk about the fact that asylum seekers create pressures on services, the more we increase anxiety in the population – rightly or wrongly, it’s not up to me to say. ”

It is also that the neighboring province has “quickly disengaged from this file,” she says. When arrivals began to accelerate more clearly on Roxham Road in 2017, “Ontario tried to mobilize, but quickly said it was a federal area of competence: we don’t get involved.”

The issue then fell rather on the local government in Toronto, which in turn called for funding in Ottawa, without Queen’s Park being involved.

Comparative study

A rare comparison was made by researchers Audrey Gagnon and Lindsay Larios, who used election platforms and media coverage of the Toronto Star and La Presse between 1987 and 2018 in their analysis.

Interestingly, the two authors note that in the early 2000s, immigration policies were more discussed during election campaigns in Ontario than in Quebec. But this relative importance has decreased since 2010, “perhaps because politicization has not brought many electoral benefits,” they indicate in their 2021 article in the Canadian Journal of Political Science.

The trajectory of Quebec shows rather greater importance from 2003, in growth until 2018. These are the tensions around integration, as well as greater polarization, especially since the Hérouxville affair in 2007. It was only then that the Quebec election candidates “were able to exploit the province’s concern about the preservation of its language and culture”.

In Ontario, “the presence of newcomers is not seen as a threat to cultural identity, but rather as an integral part of it,” they write.

The tone and arguments

“In Quebec, attention is more sustained than episodic, because of identity issues,” notes Andrew Griffith, former Director General at the Federal Ministry of Immigration.

“Yes, there has been a notable change in public opinion in Canada, but we communicate mainly in terms of housing needs, and not fears,” notes the one who is also a partner of the Environics Institute. In Quebec, the word “threat” was explicitly associated with “asylum seekers” by Minister Roberge in February 2024, before he was in immigration.

It is therefore on the substance and on the tone that the debates are different, observes Mr. Griffith But this attention is not only bad, on the contrary. In the rest of Canada, it was almost taboo to talk about immigration for a long time: “It’s understandable, but it’s also unhealthy. I have always thought it was desirable to have a fact-based discussion and to reflect on the impacts of immigration. ”

Asylum seekers were also somehow “more visible” in Quebec. On the one hand, because the arrivals at the land border by Roxham Road marked the imagination as early as 2017. But also because they then concentrate mainly in Montreal, while they are more dispersed in Ontario in urban agglomerations such as Ottawa, London, Niagara, Waterloo, York, Durham, Peel and Hamilton.

In recent years, other issues have also been politicized before in Ontario, however, concludes Ms. Paquet, especially that of international students and private colleges.

Les demandes d’asile au poste frontalier de Lacolle en hausse depuis l’année dernière

Of note:

Le point d’entrée de Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle, situé tout près du chemin Roxham et de la frontière entre le Québec et les États-Unis, accueille près de 50 % de demandeurs d’asile de plus depuis le début de l’année, comparativement à la même période en 2024, selon les chiffres de l’Agence des services frontaliers du Canada (ASFC). Pour faire face à cette hausse, l’agence fédérale a loué des « locaux supplémentaires » afin de pouvoir « aider au traitement des demandeurs d’asile ».

« En cas d’afflux de demandeurs d’asile nécessitant des locaux supplémentaires, l’ASFC met en place des plans d’urgence en matière d’infrastructure », précise l’agence fédérale dans une déclaration écrite transmise au Devoir.

Selon les chiffres fournis par l’ASFC, 10 724 demandes d’asile ont été reçues au point d’entrée de Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle entre le 1er janvier et le 27 juillet 2025. Durant la même période en 2024, 5077 demandes d’asile avaient été reçues.

Le mois de juillet 2025 (prenant fin le 27 juillet dans le cadre de la récolte de données) fut le plus occupé, avec 3089 demandes. Pendant la même période en 2024, 613 demandes d’asile avaient été enregistrées. Pour 2025, juillet est suivi du mois d’avril, avec 2733 demandes, contre 670 en 2024.

Les mois de janvier (560) et février (755) 2025 sont les deux seuls mois ayant vu moins de demandes qu’en 2024 (respectivement 818 et 859)…

Source: Les demandes d’asile au poste frontalier de Lacolle en hausse depuis l’année dernière

The Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle entry point, located very close to Roxham Road and the border between Quebec and the United States, has received nearly 50% more asylum seekers since the beginning of the year, compared to the same period in 2024, according to figures from the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). To cope with this increase, the federal agency rented “additional premises” in order to be able to “help in the treatment of asylum seekers”.

“In the event of an influx of asylum seekers requiring additional premises, the CBSA is putting in place emergency infrastructure plans,” says the federal agency in a written statement sent to Le Devoir.

According to figures provided by the CBSA, 10,724 asylum applications were received at the Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle entry point between January 1 and July 27, 2025. During the same period in 2024, 5,077 asylum applications were received.

The month of July 2025 (ending on July 27 as part of the data collection) was the busiest, with 3089 requests. During the same period in 2024, 613 asylum applications were registered. For 2025, July is followed by April, with 2733 applications, compared to 670 in 2024.

The months of January (560) and February (755) 2025 are the only two months with fewer requests than in 2024 (818 and 859 respectively)…

Urback: Trump’s policies will send asylum seekers to Canada’s border. What’s our plan?

Ongoing issue. One encouraging aspect is that virtually all are entering through official border crossings, number of RCMP interceptions appear stable according to February data:

…Yet even if Mr. Trump leaves the STCA intact, Canada should be ready for a crisis anew at our border with the U.S. (which will only compound the crisis we already have with international student no-shows, and the thousands of international students who have claimed asylum amid policy changes in order to stay in the country). Before he left office, Justin Trudeau committed $1.3-billion to tackle a contrived fentanyl crisis at the U.S.-Canada border. Now that Mr. Trump has revealed that his claimed rationale for his tariffs were an utter fabrication, Canada needs to allocate those funds – and then some – toward the real crisis.

Source: Trump’s policies will send asylum seekers to Canada’s border. What’s our plan?

Tremblay | Et si la question des réfugiés devenait l’enjeu principal des élections?

Likely not going to happen, as is the case with so many non-Trump tariff etc issues:

…Rappelons qu’en plus des Haïtiens, un très grand nombre de Vénézuéliens et de migrants latino-américains seraient également dans la mire des États-Unis. Le président américain estime le nombre total des « illégaux » à 8 millions. Combien le Canada peut-il en accueillir ? Bien malin celui qui peut répondre à cette question.

Pierre Poilievre a répondu que le Canada devait accueillir les « vrais demandeurs d’asile ». Le Bloc exige, lui, une meilleure répartition de ces réfugiés à travers le pays. Mark Carney affirme impérativement qu’il les renverrait d’où ils arrivent, c’est-à-dire aux États-Unis. Rappelons que l’Entente sur les tiers pays sûrs permet de refouler les demandeurs d’asile qui proviennent des États-Unis. Mais nos voisins sont-ils encore un pays sûr ?

Voici une belle occasion pour les conservateurs et pour le Bloc québécois. Une bonne réponse à la crise migratoire pourrait déterminer l’issue des élections, autant sinon plus que la réponse aux menaces tarifaires. Pierre Poilievre pourrait ici regagner tous les précieux points perdus depuis l’arrivée de Mark Carney en se montrant ferme dans cette crise humanitaire et en rappelant que la crise migratoire est véritablement une crise de la vision libérale de ce pays que Justin Trudeau qualifiait, il n’y a pas si longtemps, de « premier État postnational de la planète ». Le chef conservateur pourrait même s’imposer comme l’homme fort capable à la fois de protéger le Canada et de résister à Trump.

Le Bloc a de son côté l’occasion de revenir dans la mêlée pour défendre les intérêts du Québec qui ont été particulièrement malmenés par la gestion migratoire du gouvernement Trudeau. Quant à Mark Carney, il faut se poser cette question à plusieurs dizaines, voire à plusieurs centaines, de milliards de dollars : pourra-t-il continuer à cacher le bilan libéral, surtout en matière d’immigration et de logement, alors qu’une nouvelle crise migratoire s’annonce ? Quelle crédibilité auront les libéraux pour nous convaincre qu’ils seront les meilleurs pour freiner l’afflux de réfugiés après des années de déni et de laxisme éhontés en la matière ?

Qui a dit que la campagne électorale était déjà terminée ?

Source: Idées | Et si la question des réfugiés devenait l’enjeu principal des élections?

… Recall that in addition to Haitians, a very large number of Venezuelans and Latin American migrants would also be in the sights of the United States. The American president estimates the total number of “illegals” at 8 million. How many can Canada accommodate? Very smart who can answer this question.

Pierre Poilievre replied that Canada should welcome the “real asylum seekers”. The Bloc demands a better distribution of these refugees across the country. Mark Carney imperatively states that he would send them back to where they arrive, that is, to the United States. Recall that the Agreement on Safe Third Countries makes it possible to push back asylum seekers who come from the United States. But are our neighbors still a safe country?

This is a great opportunity for the Conservatives and for the Bloc Québécois. A good response to the migration crisis could determine the outcome of the elections, as much if not more than the response to tariff threats. Pierre Poilievre could here regain all the precious points lost since the arrival of Mark Carney by being firm in this humanitarian crisis and recalling that the migration crisis is truly a crisis of the liberal vision of this country that Justin Trudeau described, not so long ago, as “the first post-national state on the planet”. The conservative leader could even establish himself as the strong man capable of both protecting Canada and resisting Trump.

The Bloc, for its part, has the opportunity to return to the fray to defend Quebec’s interests, which have been particularly mistreated by the Trudeau government’s migration management. As for Mark Carney, we must ask himself this question at several tens, even several hundred, of billions of dollars: will he be able to continue to hide the liberal balance sheet, especially in terms of immigration and housing, while a new migration crisis is announced? What credibility will the Liberals have to convince us that they will be the best at curbing the influx of refugees after years of shameless denial and laxity in this area?

Who said the election campaign was already over?

Venezuelans facing deportation in the U.S. seeking routes to Canada, including by illegal crossings 

Something going on with IRCC and CBSA as monthly stats on asylum claimants from IRCC date from December 2014 and irregular arrivals from RCMP/CBSA date from January (former generally issued in about 5 weeks, latter generally a week or two). Impact of cuts on important data given articles like this:

Venezuelans facing deportation from the United States under President Donald Trump’s immigration clampdown are seeking routes to Canada, including illegal crossings, according to Canadian immigration consultants.

They say some Venezuelans have already crossed into Canada – both at regular border posts and by slipping across – with others preparing to come here to escape being detained and deported from the U.S.

Hundreds of Venezuelans are facing deportation after Mr. Trump announced plans to end Venezuelans’ special protected status, introduced by the Biden administration, shielding them from deportation. Some with alleged links to gangs have already been detained and deported.

Immigration experts working with the Venezuelan community said Canada is viewed as a top destination for those who do not want to be returned.

The Canadian government does not deport Venezuelans to their home country, which is beset by violent crime.

Annie Beaudoin, a Canadian immigration consultant based in California, said “the end of the U.S. Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for thousands of Venezuelans, Haitians, and other foreign nationals, has translated into an increase in illegal crossings into Canada.”

She said some Venezuelans, including health and construction workers, attempting to come through illegal crossings might qualify for visas to come to Canada….

Source: Venezuelans facing deportation in the U.S. seeking routes to Canada, including by illegal crossings

Canada Curbed Illegal Migration to the U.S. Now People Are Heading to Canada.

Sort of inevitable that increased security patrols mean further persons found. No major uptick to date, February data should be out shortly:

…Canada has directed 1.3 billion Canadian dollars ($900 million) to enhance border security, adding two Black Hawk helicopters and 60 drones equipped with thermal cameras.

It also tightened requirements for temporary visas that some visitors used to arrive in Canada legally but then enter the United States illegally.

The Canadian government says its recent measures have driven down the number of unauthorized crossings into the United States: About 600 migrants were intercepted at the border in January, down from about 900 in January 2024, according to U.S. data.

“Whether or not some of the allegations about what is going on at the border are accurate or not, or credible or not, I don’t have the luxury not to take it seriously,” Marc Miller, Canada’s immigration minister, said in an interview on Thursday.

…The Opposite Direction

Canada’s focus on the border, against the backdrop of Mr. Trump’s domestic crackdown on migrants, is why the nine people walking into Alberta on Feb. 3 raised alarms: It was unusual to see a group this large crossing on foot in the heart of winter. The presence of young children made it all the more troubling.

The Canadian authorities say they have been intercepting more people arriving from the United States, but because of the schedule Canada follows in releasing data, no numbers are yet available for the weeks since Mr. Trump’s inauguration in January. But government news releases suggest the numbers are rising….

“This is the latest sign that Canada is sending people and families with children back to the U.S. with the full knowledge that they are at great risk of being detained and then returned to danger,” said Ketty Nivyabandi, a leader of Amnesty International’s Canada chapter, referring to the nine migrants Canada returned to the United States. 

“The Canadian government must not wait a minute longer to withdraw from the Safe Third Country Agreement,” she added.

But such a move would likely encourage more people to seek refuge in Canada, creating new pressures on the country’s already strained immigration system.

“It would almost certainly lead to a surge in unauthorized border crossings,” said Phil Triadafilopoulos, a political science professor at the University of Toronto.

Still, he added, by continuing to return asylum seekers to the United States, Canada is signaling that “it isn’t going to receive people who have lost their temporary protected status in the U.S. as hospitably as it did in the past.”

And as illustrated by the migrants who crossed in Alberta, those groups, he said, can “include small children in really dire conditions, with the full knowledge that the fate of those children and their families is highly uncertain.”

Mr. Miller, the immigration minister, insisted that Canada believes that the United States remains a safe country for asylum seekers.

“We need to have a proper, managed system at the border,” he said. “But it doesn’t mean that we’re naïve, or we’re not watching events that are currently happening in the U.S.”…

Source: Canada Curbed Illegal Migration to the U.S. Now People Are Heading to Canada.