Barutciski: Has Canada’s asylum system fallen victim to ideology?

Valid question, with focus on two major contributors to the increase, the removal of visas on Mexicans and tightening recently relaxed visa restrictions. And it is true that the majority of academics covering immigration and related issues tend to be on the left side of the spectrum and border on activist perspectives:

According to recent statistics, around 15,000 to 16,000 migrants have claimed asylum in Canada in each of the last three months. There will likely be more than 140,000 claims for 2023, a number several times higher than the old record before the Liberals formed government in 2015.

As the European country with the most asylum seekers, Germany is receiving similar numbers per capita — and its leaders speak openly of a crisis. Prominent progressive leaders from U.S. Democrats to Germany’s coalition Social Democrat and Green partners are realizing that current approaches to asylum are undermining our democracies and encouraging anti-immigrant rhetoric. Justin Trudeau’s Liberals appear distinctly as a global outlier.

Until a decade ago, Canada was receiving on average less than 25,000 asylum claims per year. To suggest the recent increase is related to a global displacement crisis, as repeated by the federal government and others trying to downplay the situation, is to ignore the distinct demographics of the Canadian inflow.

The global statistics reflect mostly displaced people who remain within their countries of origin, along with specific conflict situations (e.g. Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine); these are not the migrants claiming asylum in Canada.

Mexico remains the top source country for asylum claims in Canada, yet the federal government continues to allow Mexicans to enter the country without visas. Along with several thousand claims from Indian citizens, the unusual situation has been highlighted by Quebec media, which have reported that many international students are claiming asylum.

The boom in temporary residents includes migrants who intend to stay permanently, so it should be expected that the inevitable failure of many to secure permanent status will lead to visa overstaying and even abusive asylum claims. As asylum seekers overwhelm homeless shelters or sleep on the streets, their overall number clearly contributes to population growth. which affects the housing crisis.

To avoid the perception of a broken asylum system, the government could take relatively quick action. Imposing visas on Mexicans. and tightening recently relaxed visitor visa issuance, are measures any responsible government would take if it realized public confidence was being undermined. Likewise, the immigration department’s “client-focused” attitude is misplaced for any bureaucratic service involved in border control.

The only logical explanation for not trying to limit the inflow is ideological: The Trudeau Liberals believe that Canada should take an abstract “fair share” and that their progressive, university-educated constituencies are onboard.

This is partly related to the longstanding politicization of universities. By overcompensating in their attempts not to appear anti-immigrant, Canada’s political and media class are reinforcing the failure of the country’s universities to promote a diversity of analysis concerning asylum dilemmas. Unfortunately, the actual study of this issue is dedicated to a political agenda focused on social engineering. The legitimacy of borders is routinely questioned and there is dogmatic refusal to accept tight enforcement via removals to maintain the system’s integrity.

It is not by chance that Canada’s responsibility-sharing treaty with the U.S., the Safe Third Country Agreement, was uniformly denounced in law journals and academic publications. It took our Supreme Court to clarify earlier this year that our continental partner is indeed safe for asylum seekers. Publicly funded university research should not be so one-sided in addressing complex border issues that otherwise attract a healthy diversity of non-academic views. The limited analytical abilities learned by students will show in how they perform their jobs after graduation, whether in public service, media, etc.

Asylum as a modern humanist notion traditionally relied on strict principles relating to individualized persecution. It cannot be a gateway for “toute la misère du monde,” as recently stated by French President Emmanuel Macron. By pushing a well-intentioned but overly generous approach, inspired by post-national ideology promoted on campuses, the current government threatens the integrity of Canada’s immigration system.

The Liberals originally came to power partly because of the upbeat humanitarian spirit they displayed while the Syrian refugee crisis destabilized allies. Similar asylum issues may ironically contribute to their downfall by illustrating their tendency to jeopardize basic state functions with ideology and incompetence. The important historical concept of asylum is the latest example that leaves the impression some Canadian institutions are approaching a breaking point.

Michael Barutciski teaches at York University’s Glendon College.

Source: Barutciski: Has Canada’s asylum system fallen victim to ideology?

Rioux: La recette du chaos

Alarmist but the ongoing hardening of public opinion significant. Valid questions given nature of flows are driven by economic forces, not political persecution:

Il y avait quelque chose de burlesque. Comme dans une scène de Marcel Pagnol. Pendant que le pape, perché sur les hauteurs de Notre-Dame-de-la-Garde, vantait les vertus de la belle et grande « mosaïque » culturelle de Marseille, le bon peuple ébahi se demandait s’il avait bien entendu. Ce pape n’avait-il jamais entendu parler de Socayna, 24 ans, fauchée par une rafale de Kalachnikov alors qu’elle vivait paisiblement avec sa mère au 3e étage d’un immeuble ? Une « balle perdue », comme on dit. Derrière le village Potemkine qu’on lui avait aménagé, ne pouvait-il pas comprendre que si Marseille était la capitale française de l’immigration, elle était surtout celle des guerres de gangs et du trafic de drogue ? Portés par la grâce, les papes ne vivent pas tout à fait dans notre monde.

Les chefs d’État et de gouvernement du Conseil européen qui se réunissent aujourd’hui à Grenade ne peuvent malheureusement prétendre avoir accès aux mêmes voix célestes. Au menu, l’adoption d’un nième Pacte sur l’immigration et l’asile. Un texte que les 27 se sont finalement décidé à adopter tant la colère est grande de Lisbonne à Budapest contre une Union européenne qui n’est plus qu’une passoire. À huit mois des élections européennes, alors que les demandes d’asile ont augmenté de 30 % au premier semestre, l’immigration pourrait en effet susciter en juin prochain une véritable bronca dans les urnes.

Parmi les chefs de gouvernement qui sentent la soupe chaude, on trouve l’Allemand Olaf Scholz. « Le nombre de réfugiés qui cherchent à venir actuellement en Allemagne est trop élevé », avoue-t-il sur un ton qui ressemble étrangement à celui de la première ministre italienne, Giorgia Meloni, dont le pays est pourtant en première ligne.

Le parti d’extrême droite Alternative pour l’Allemagne (AFD) compte désormais 78 députés au Bundestag et 20 % d’intentions de vote dans les sondages. Le double de son résultat de 2021. Le plat pays ne fait pas exception. Ce sont 56 % des Belges qui soutiennent la décision de la secrétaire d’État à l’Asile et la Migration de ne plus accueillir les hommes seuls dans les refuges au profit des familles avec enfants uniquement. De telles mesures sont largement plébiscitées dans des pays aussi différents que la Pologne ou les Pays-Bas. Tout indique qu’on a changé d’époque.

Difficile aujourd’hui de cacher que seule une minorité de ces migrants sont des réfugiés au sens propre. Ils pénètrent en Europe, d’où ils deviennent inexpulsables grâce à l’action conjuguée d’un système juridique hégémonique et d’une filière humanitaire qui fait la part belle — malgré elle — aux passeurs. Avec des profits de 35 milliards de dollars (en 2017), ce trafic d’êtres humains serait devenu le troisième secteur le plus lucratif du crime organisé selon l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations.

Peu importe ce qu’en pensent les élus, le 21 septembre, la Cour de justice européenne a privé la France du droit de refouler immédiatement les clandestins qui franchissent sa frontière avec l’Italie. Le même jour, elle empêchait l’Italie d’obliger les clandestins à résider dans un centre de séjour le temps de traiter leur demande.

Non seulement le migrant qui arrive à Lampedusa ne peut-il pas être refoulé vers son port d’origine, mais il ne peut pas être retenu le temps d’examiner sa situation. Une fois en France, il ne peut être renvoyé en Italie et peut donc y rester à demeure puisqu’à peine 5 % des obligations de quitter le territoire sont appliquées.

Le monde fabulé des « No Borders » existe déjà. Il se nomme l’Union européenne. On ne s’étonnera pas que la ministre de l’Intérieur britannique, Suella Braverman, elle-même fille d’immigrants, ait déclaré que la Convention de Genève n’était « plus adaptée à notre époque ». Grand amoureux de l’Afrique, l’ancien premier ministre socialiste Michel Rocard ne pensait pas autre chose lorsqu’il affirmait en 1989 que la France ne pouvait « pas héberger toute la misère du monde » et qu’elle devait « rester ce qu’elle est, une terre d’asile politique […] mais pas plus ». La même année, François Mitterrand avait estimé que le « seuil de tolérance » des Français à l’égard des étrangers avait été atteint… dans les années 1970 !

Trente ans et vingt lois plus tard, l’immense majorité des Français et tout particulièrement les classes populaires — qui comptent 10 millions de pauvres et sont les premières à souffrir de cette immigration — attendent toujours que leurs leaders s’en tiennent à leurs déclarations. Car, contrairement à nombre de politiques qui ont jeté le gant, les peuples croient encore à la politique. C’est pourquoi ils s’accommodent mal de dirigeants qui se prétendent capables de combattre le réchauffement climatique mais pas l’immigration illégale qui serait, elle, « inévitable », alors que des pays comme l’Australie, le Japon et le Danemark ont prouvé le contraire.

Dans un roman aux allures d’apocalypse, l’ancien grand reporter Jean Rolin, qui a couvert l’éclatement de la Yougoslavie, mettait en scène une traversée de la France déchirée par une guerre civile (Les événements, Folio). On n’en est évidemment pas là. Mais rien ne dit que ce refus de la politique n’est pas la recette du chaos.

Source: La recette du chaos

Barutciski: Roxham Road is closed. So why are asylum claims still on the rise?

Another example of the need to have more honest discussions on immigration and illustration of the conceit that Canada has a “managed immigration system”:

In March, Washington and Ottawa agreed to close Roxham Road, the small alley in Quebec through which thousands of asylum seekers have entered Canada from the United States, bypassing customs. Nearly 40,000 people entered Canada through Roxham Road in 2022; there were a record 91,710 claimants last year.

So despite the closing, why has Canada already processed more than 80,000 applications from asylum seekers so far this year?

Part of the answer, it appears, is that the international airports in Montreal and Toronto have become magnets for asylum claimants. According to Radio-Canada, immigration authorities quietly implemented a new policy to expedite temporary visa processing, including removing the need for proof that applicants will leave Canada at the end of their stay. This has reportedly made it easier for people who would normally have difficulty obtaining tourist visas to enter and then claim asylum upon arrival. This contrasts with decades-long policy characterized by restrictive visa rules and airline sanctions for travellers boarding with false documents.

Recently published statistics also show that immigration offices in Ontario and Quebec are receiving many inland claimants: migrants who entered Canada either legally or illegally, and then only afterward applied for asylum. This had already been happening when Roxham Road was open; in 2022, Canada received another 50,000 asylum claims from migrants who were already within the country. So far this year, the situation is similar.

The problem is that the government has not been forthcoming about these numbers or the policy that potentially led to them. There is no public data showing how many overstayed their visa-prescribed visits, or how many circumvented the recently tightened Safe Third Country Agreement with the United States. And this lack of transparency could leave Canadians to wonder if Ottawa is hiding that it has shifted to a relatively open-border approach.

Asylum seekers want to come to Canada because it is a rich country that offers unparalleled treatment, including generous benefits and almost-guaranteed citizenship for those granted protection; in many other regions, they often barely receive adequate food and shelter, and exist precariously at the whim of host governments. But interestingly, the influx of claimants in Canada is not necessarily related to global trends. Even though Syria, Ukraine and Afghanistan are the top source countriesfor migrants in need of international protection, Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board reports that our top source this year is Mexico; India is our fifth-highest source.

Unlike the U.S., Canada has not required visas for Mexicans since 2016, though we are well beyond the numbers that previously triggered the reimposition of visa requirements; Washington has asked Ottawa to reinstate them, to prevent entry to the U.S. from its northern border. And despite current diplomatic tensions with India, it has been our top source country for accepted permanent residents and temporary students – so it is odd that it is also a leading country of origin for asylum claimants.

Neither Mexico nor India is embroiled in political upheaval or armed conflict. So why are these among our top source countries?

A distinct vision of asylum policy appears to be emerging from the Trudeau Liberals: one that is generous, in allowing people from less privileged countries to enter Canada legally as a way of regularizing migration. The approach could also be seen as practical, in that it contributes to our demographic expansion by welcoming particularly determined individuals who would otherwise not be admitted under standard immigration streams. And it is politically attractive for humanitarian self-promotion.

But it remains to be seen whether an anxious public is ready to normalize yearly asylum claims that could number in the six digits. While reasonable people can disagree on the appropriate response to record numbers of asylum claims, a healthy liberal democracy will try to balance the basic dignity of asylum seekers and the legitimate interests of the host population. But it has become difficult in Canada to have honest discussions about our commitments. If the federal government is implementing policy changes on visa issuance, then it needs to be upfront about it, given the implications for resource planning, including at the provincial and municipal levels as well as among grassroots refugee organizations.

Canada’s immigration system has worked to date because it is highly controlled and focused on selecting migrants that advance the country’s needs. It is not intended to promote an ideological world view that believes there is global injustice resulting from a supposed birthright lottery that limits poor migrants from travelling freely. To maintain the country’s pro-immigration consensus in the real world, however, our leaders cannot view asylum in such a blue-sky way. But at the very minimum, they need to give us the information we need to have a real debate.

Michael Barutciski is a faculty member of York University’s Glendon College. He teaches law and policy with a focus on migration issues.

Source: Roxham Road is closed. So why are asylum claims still on the rise?

Here’s what really happened when Canada shut down Roxham Road

A possible fallacy to arguments made by advocates that the change affected the “most vulnerable people without the money, without the wherewithal, without the ability to get a visa, who are now excluded from Canada’s protection” is that it appears that many of the Roxham Road crossers had arrived in the USA by air, and, who, in many cases, had US entry visas.

So perhaps more of a shift between source countries than greater impact on the more vulnerable and a shared “class privilege”:

New rules brought in this year to stem the tide of irregular migrants at spots such as Quebec’s Roxham Road have changed who is coming to Canada to seek asylum and how they are getting here, a Star analysis reveals.

The shift in patterns, critics contend, means that some of the most vulnerable refugees are being excluded from Canada’s asylum protection.

In March, Washington and Ottawa expanded the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement across their entire shared border — not just at the official ports of entry.

In doing so, they closed a loophole that had been used by irregular migrants to sneak from one country into the other to seek asylum, something that had drawn significant political and media scrutiny.

The updated accord meant that any foreign national who attempted to cross into Canada at any point of the 8,891-kilometre shared border without authorization would be denied access to asylum and turned back to the U.S., unless one of the exceptions to the rule applied.

Since new rules took effect in late March, the foot traffic of asylum seekers crossing Quebec’s Roxham Road has dwindled to a trickle or nothing. Yet there hasn’t been a major drop-off in those coming to Canada to seek asylum.

Data obtained by the Star offers an explanation.

Between January and July of this year, the total number of by-air and by-land asylum claimants to Canada was 39,295 — an increase of 29 per cent over the same period last year. (This year’s number also surpassed by a huge margin the 14,820 recorded by the end of July in 2019, the year before the pandemic hit.)

After the new border rules were put into place in March, the number of land claimants dropped significantly — from more than 5,000 a month in the first three months of 2023 to just under 1,500 a month.

However, that decline was offset by the surge in the number of people seeking protection upon arrival by air.

Although there were 9,490 fewer people making claims at the land ports of entry between March and July, the number of migrants seeking asylum at airports grew by 8,425 over the same time in 2022. It’s gone from 1,500 a month at the start of the year to 3,350 a month since April.

Critics say the new border measures simply make the presence of refugees less visible and their arrival less dramatic.

“In order to erase the images of people crossing with luggage in hand at Roxham Road and quiet the noise of a political backlash, the government has created a new problem, but it’s a less visible problem,” said refugee lawyer Maureen Silcoff. She added that the would-be asylum seekers who are in the most jeopardy might be the hardest hit by the policy change.

“My concern is the government has now put in place a system with dire consequences, because the more vulnerable people are now at high risk of harm in their country of origin because the land border is closed and the airports are not available to them … It’s the most vulnerable people without the money, without the wherewithal, without the ability to get a visa, who are now excluded from Canada’s protection.”

Unlike some migrants arriving by land, claimants who come by air must have some forms of travel documents such as a passport and visa or electronic travel authorization (eTA) to board a flight to get here. The new border rules have seemingly had an impact on what nation’s would-be asylum seekers reach Canada.

Turkey remains the main source of land-border claimants, with 3,545 claims lodged between January and July, followed by Colombians (3,005), Haitians (2,205), Venezuelans (2,010) and Afghans (1,685) among the top five.

The source countries are drastically different for those coming by air. Mexicans top the list with 7,885 claims in the first seven months of this year, followed by Indians (1,985), Kenyans (975), Senegalese (745) and Ethiopians (475).

Experts can’t explain the surge of by-air claims in Canada since April because there have not been any dramatic world events that prompted the spike in claims from those countries, though there are generally increased arrivals of claimants by air in summer months.

“People who are fleeing as refugees come from a whole range of backgrounds. You’re going to have to do country-specific research in order to identify the migration corridors they use,” said Prof. Sharry Aiken, who teaches immigration law at Queen’s University.

“Data sets don’t coalesce because people were coming as irregular migrants and that was the only way they could come, and people who are still coming on planes are able to get documents.”

What’s clear to Aiken is that these top refugee source countries, whether their asylum seekers come by air or land, all have a history of human rights violations. Canada does not require visas from Mexican travellers, she said, which explains the high volume of air claims from Mexico. (The U.S. requires Mexicans coming by air or land to have a visa or another document called a Border Control Card.)

“Every attempt by governments to seal borders is not going to be effective in reducing the numbers of people arriving. They will temporarily reduce some asylum seekers from taking particular routes, but others will be taking different routes,” Aiken said.

“People are still getting here, but not the same people who would have otherwise been able to come here, at least in some cases. My guess is that we’re getting asylum seekers with a degree of class privilege who are arriving by plane.”

Source: Here’s what really happened when Canada shut down Roxham Road

Months after closure of Quebec’s Roxham Road, more asylum seekers arriving by air

Well, of course they are. But a more regular pathway than Roxham Road and one that reflects increased air travel and visas. The issue, as always, remains hearing and processing times and the extensive appeal processes in case asylum not granted. And to date, fears about the closing of irregular points of arrivals have not been realized:

The closure of a rural southern Quebec road used by thousands of asylum seekers to enter Canada from the United States hasn’t stopped would-be refugees from arriving, federal data shows.

The number of people claiming asylum in Canada dropped sharply after the end of March, when the government negotiated a deal with the United States to turn away asylum seekers at unofficial border crossings like Quebec’s Roxham Road. However, the numbers have been climbing back up in recent months, propelled by an increase in arrivals at Ontario and Quebec airports.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and U.S. President Joe Biden announced in March that they were closing a long-standing loophole in the Safe Third Country Agreement, under which asylum seekers have to apply for refugee status in the first of the two countries they enter. Now the deal applies along the entire shared border, rather than just at official ports of entry — a situation that had led to thousands of people crossing at Roxham Road each month to ensure their claims would be heard in Canada.

In June, RCMP across the country intercepted just 36 people between official border points, compared with 4,994 in January. However, the Canada Border Services Agency processed 4,350 claims in June at airports — almost all of them in Quebec and Ontario — compared to 1,370 in January and 1,360 in June 2022.

While the issue may have faded from the political spotlight since Roxham Road was closed, the head of one group that helps refugees in Montreal says his organization is as busy as ever.

“The numbers that we’re experiencing now are actually higher than we’ve had in March and January and February,” said Abdulla Daoud, executive director of Montreal-based The Refugee Centre. He said his organization gets between 100 and 150 people a day seeking legal services and other help with their claims.

Daoud believes the increase in numbers at airports is due to the “current global state of affairs” that has resulted in what the United Nations Refugee Agency has called the greatest number of displaced people on record — some 110 million.

“This is our global reality and this is how the world is working today,” he said. “We have to start investing in infrastructure to deal with the numbers that we’re getting, because there is no real deterrent that can be applied to stop individuals from coming in.”

Stéphanie Valois, the co-president of Quebec’s immigration lawyers’ association, sees another reason for the increase in airport arrivals. She said the federal government in recent months has “massively” increased its processing of visitor visas in order to address a backlog, resulting in more arrivals and therefore more claims.

In her opinion, the rise in airport arrivals isn’t linked to the closure of Roxham Road because “the asylum seekers coming in at the airport come from different places.” She said people who entered at Roxham Road were generally from countries where it was difficult to get a visitor visa, such as Haiti, Turkey, Colombia and Venezuela. Those arriving at airports are arriving with visas, often from African countries or India, she said.

However, she agrees with Daoud that in the long run, the number of asylum seekers will rise, as more people figure out ways to reach Canada in their quest for safety.

The Canadian Press asked Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada for information about changes to its visa processing but did not receive a response by publication time.

Both Daoud and Valois say they are worried about the people who are no longer able to use Roxham Road to get to Canada. Valois noted that the majority of asylum claims in Canada are ultimately accepted, which proves “these aren’t people who come here for a better life,” she said. “They come to escape persecution.”

Both also worry that those who still choose to make the journey will find themselves in unsafe situations, and will resort increasingly to smugglers to get them across the border.

Daoud says his organization has already been seeing more and more people who sneak across the border and hide from authorities for two weeks before making a claim. While the Safe Third Country Agreement now applies to people that cross between ports of entry, it doesn’t apply to those who have already been in the country for at least 14 days.

“We’ve had individuals who are just hiding in random areas, not even in shelters,” Daoud said.

While they won’t share data for “logistical” reasons, the RCMP say there has been an increase in covert border crossings in both the northbound and southbound directions since the new system has been put into place.

“Across the Quebec-U.S. border, there isn’t a day or a night without a police interception of some migrants (either going north or south),” Sgt. Charles Poirier wrote in an email. “For this reason, we’ve adapted our patrols, and we are now pursuing investigations into some smuggling networks.”

He said a recent case in which a woman gave birth in the woods near Potton, Que., after her family became stranded highlights “the new reality that we are now faced with.”

Chief Patrol Agent Robert Garcia of United States Border Patrol wrote this week that agents patrolling a sector of the border that includes Vermont, New Hampshire and eastern New York apprehended more than 5,400 subjects in just over 10 months — more than in the last nine years combined.

Source: Months after closure of Quebec’s Roxham Road, more asylum seekers arriving by air

On Peter Street, a community steps up for asylum seekers abandoned to sleep on the sidewalk

Ongoing crisis and scandal:

As asylum seekers continued to sleep on a downtown Toronto sidewalk waiting on government to sort out a funding dispute, community leaders and business owners stepped in to help.

Some asylum seekers were relocated Monday night, an advocate said.

Lorraine Lam, an outreach worker who has spoken out about the situation at 129 Peter St., said a “coalition of groups” worked to arrange a bus and space for individuals at temporary church shelters. 

Some people went to the church while others chose to stay behind, Lam said.

The growing camp of refugee claimants and asylum seekers downtown is the result of a tug-of-war between all levels of government over who should foot the bill when it comes to housing refugees in Canada. A new city policy, which Deputy Mayor Jennifer McKelvie framed as a hard decision, means asylum seekers looking for emergency beds in the city’s non-refugee-specific shelters would be redirected to the federal government.

Mayor Olivia Chow said all hands on deck are required to solve the crisis.

“When senior staff meet on Tuesday, my expectation is tangible solutions from all three levels of government that we can implement right away,” Chow said on Monday.

On Monday morning, Paramount Fine Foods CEO Mohamad Fakih pledged to donate $20,000 and raise more money to pay for temporary housing. 

There are “good people in the government. They want to do the right thing, but it’s taking long and they have to move,” Fakih said. “This is wrong on all of us and we have to change it.” 

He’s asking other business leaders to open their hearts and their pockets if they are able to help. 

One man who the Star agreed not to name has been at 129 Peter St. for 10 days. He said that while they are grateful to get food, what they really need is shelter. 

“We have food in our own countries. But we came here because of security. And now security means that we have to have a place that is enclosed, where we put our heads (to rest),” the man said.

Meanwhile, 32 housing advocates and outreach workers sent an open letter to the head of Toronto’s shelter and housing system, Gord Tanner, calling for his resignation or for Chow to fire him over what they call “repeated mismanagement of the shelter system.”

While the collapse of the shelter system “is not solely the General Manager (of Toronto’s Shelter Support and Housing Administration) responsibility — it lies with City Council — your key decisions have resulted in immeasurable harm and have further exacerbated the crisis,” the letter states. 

The letter cites several “key decisions” advocates say have resulted in “immeasurable harm,” including the city denying shelter to refugees and changing shelter death reporting from monthly to biannually. 

In a statement shared with the Star, city manager Paul Johnson acknowledged the letter, adding the voices of homeless, shelter and refugee advocates matter and they play a critical role in providing supports and advocacy work, as well as City staff.

“I have every confidence in the individual mentioned in the letter and in my team who has been working diligently and on an ongoing basis, in partnership with many other experts and community leaders, some of whom are signatories of the letter,” Johnson wrote.

Johnson said urgent funding is needed from other levels of government to support the surge of people arriving in Canada as the city grapples with a shelter system that does not have extra space or means to expand the shelter system to keep up with demand.

“A lot of political figures respond to public pressure and it’s not looking very good on them right now. So I would say that maybe that little bit of pressure might jog some more quick rapid-response movement,” Lam said.

Lam took to Twitter this weekend to encourage community members who want to help to be mindful of what they are donating.

“What we started to see over the weekend, for instance, was there was so much food because everybody wanted to bring food on the weekend and on Friday night, because that’s when people are free,” Lam said. The result was extra food being thrown away or sitting next to people as they tried to sleep.

Lam and fellow outreach worker Diana McNally have started a GoFundMe to go toward water, meals, and store gift cards as well as requested items like camping chairs and sleeping bags. The campaign has raised $59,985 as of Monday afternoon. 

Brampton non-profit groups Help A Girl Out and Rescue the Youth were also in front of 129 Peter St. on Monday with pink drawstring bags full of soap, sanitizer, toothbrushes, wash clothes and sanitary pads. 

“I can’t imagine having your period on the streets,” said Andria Barrett, chair of Help a Girl Out. 

“Every non-profit, church, charity, mosque, religious institution needs to come together and donate — donate money, donate time, donate food, donate products. This is not how we need to be treating each other,” Barrett said, gesturing to the dozens of people sitting outside 129 Peter St. under tents with suitcases and garbage bags filled with belongings around them. 

Don Mills resident Vickie Williams was rolling a suitcase around the site on Monday and told the Star she dropped off used jackets, a sleeping bag, new socks and other clothing she stayed up gathering until 3 a.m.

“What is going on is not right. Our government’s got to be the example. And as far as I can see, they are not the example. They need to smarten up. They need to treat everybody equally and fairly,” Williams said.

Source: On Peter Street, a community steps up for asylum seekers abandoned to sleep on the sidewalk

U.S. is rejecting asylum seekers at much higher rates under new Biden policy

Of note:

A new Biden administration policy has dramatically lowered the percentage of migrants at the southern border who enter the United States and are allowed to apply for asylum, according to numbers revealed in legal documents obtained by The Times. Without these new limits to asylum, border crossings could overwhelm local towns and resources, a Department of Homeland Security official warned a federal court in a filing this month.

The new asylum policy is the centerpiece of the Biden administration’s border efforts.

Under the new rules, people who cross through a third country on the way to the U.S. and fail to seek protections there are presumed ineligible for asylum. Only people who enter the U.S. without authorization are subject to this new restriction.

The number of single-adult migrants who are able to pass initial screenings at the border has dropped from 83% to 46% under the new policy, the Biden administration said in the court filing. The 83% rate refers to initial asylum screenings between 2014 and 2019; the new data cover the period from May 12, the first full day the new policywas in place, through June 13.

Since the expiration of Title 42 rules that allowed border agents to quickly turn back migrants at the border without offering them access to asylum, the administration has pointed to a drop in border crossings as proof that its policies are working.

But immigrant advocates and legal groups have blasted Biden’s new asylum policy, arguing that it is a repurposed version of a Trump-era effort that made people in similar circumstances ineligible for asylum. (Under Biden’s policy, certain migrants can overcome the presumption that they are ineligible for asylum.) The ACLU and other groups have sought to block the rule in federal court in San Francisco, in front of the same judge who stopped the Trump policy years ago.

The new filing provides the first look at how the Biden administration’s asylum policy is affecting migrants who have ignored the government’s warnings not to cross the border.

“This newly released data confirms that the new asylum restrictions are as harsh as advocates warned,” said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy director at the American Immigration Council. “The data contradicts conservative attacks on the rule for being too lenient. Less than 1 in 10 people subject to the rule have been able to rebut its presumption against asylum eligibility.”

The numbers show that, thus far, 8,195 asylum-seekers who crossed the border have had the new rules applied to them and 88% had the policy limit their chance at asylum. These migrants were forced to pass a higher standard of screening reserved for different forms of protection under U.S. law. Some 46% of migrants who were forced to go through the new approach either cleared the higher standard or established an exception to the rule, like a medical emergency.

These individuals will now have the chance to seek asylum, and other protections, in immigration court.

“As intended, the rule has significantly reduced screen-in rates for noncitizens encountered along the [Southwest border],” Blas Nuñez-Neto, a senior DHS official, wrote in the filing. “The decline in encounters at the U.S. border, and entries into the Darién Gap, show that the application of consequences as a result of the rule’s implementation is disincentivizing noncitizens from pursuing irregular migration and incentivizing them to use safe and orderly pathways.”

Reichlin-Melnick said that the few who did get past the new rule probably would not succeed in getting asylum in immigration court due to the policy but could still gain the other, lesser forms of protections offered under U.S. law.

Nuñez-Neto said that without the policy, DHS expects to see an increase in border crossings that would hurt local border communities and overstretch government resources.

He explained that DHS intelligence indicates that there are an estimated 104,000 migrants in northern Mexico and that many of these migrants appear to be “waiting to see whether the strengthened consequences associated with the rule’s implementation are real.”

Nuñez-Neto said the population in northern Mexico is within eight hours of the U.S. border. He cited the increase in arrests at the border in the run-up to the end of Title 42 earlier in May, when border agents were seeing upward of 10,000 migrants cross in a single day.

“DHS anticipates that any interruption in the rule’s implementation will result in another surge in migration that will significantly disrupt and tax DHS operations. This expectation is not speculative. DHS needs only to look back to the pre-May 12 surge, which was only blunted by the application of strengthened consequences at the border and expanded access to lawful pathways and processes, in large part as a result of the rule’s implementation on May 12, to identify the repercussions of losing the rule,” he wrote.

The Trump administration barred asylum for migrants who crossed the U.S. border and did not seek protections in another country on their journey. U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar later blocked the policy. The Supreme Court stayed the order.

The Times interviewed migrants in Mexico who said they were still assessing the border changes in May — including some who were worried about the new policy and its potential consequences. The Biden administration has advertised deportations and the immigration consequences for those who cross the border without authorization on social media and in statements.

Julia Gelatt, a senior policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, said the data revealed the policy changes at the border were making a difference in who was able to access asylum, though she noted that families were not included in the statistics presented by Nuñez-Neto.

“These data show that a much smaller share of single adult migrants are able to get into the United States to seek protections than before Title 42,” she said. “This represents a significant narrowing of the possibility of asylum for single adults coming to the border.”

Source: U.S. is rejecting asylum seekers at much higher rates under new Biden policy

Once-popular rural Quebec road for asylum seekers quiets down after U.S.-Canada deal

As expected:

About 12 hours after the closure of a rural southern Quebec road used by thousands of asylum seekers to enter Canada from the United States, Evelyne Bouchard witnessed RCMP agents escort a family of four people off her property.

Bouchard, whose farm is located about two kilometres from the forested pathway known as Roxham Road, says she is used to seeing police around her home; at times, she has found clothing and unknown footprints in the snow on her Hemmingford, Que., property.

In a recent interview, she said it was upsetting to see people being taken away so soon after the Canada-United States immigration deal closed Roxham Road to most would-be refugees.

“It’s that contrast,” she said. “This is like my happy place — my home. I love this place, and to think that someone in that same kind of physical space is feeling afraid and vulnerable and is possibly in danger is just completely heartbreaking.”

Officials say the massive wave of would-be refugees crossing into Canada has slowed significantly since the end of March, when the government negotiated a deal with the United States to turn away asylum seekers at unofficial border crossings like Roxham Road, closing a long-standing loophole in the Safe Third Country Agreement.

That agreement assumes that Canada and the U.S. are “safe” countries for would-be refugees. It also forces asylum seekers to apply for refugee status in the first country they enter — Canada or the U.S. — and prohibits them from crossing the border to file a claim.

Estelle Muzzi, mayor of border community St-Bernard-de-Lacolle, said residents who live near Roxham Road have reported a decrease in foot traffic in the area since the treaty was expanded.

“The message is getting through because I’m told that it’s gone down dramatically — there’s a big drop in traffic,” Muzzi said in a recent interview.

“I think that for the citizens of St-Bernard-de-Lacolle who were very affected by the situation, those who live right next to the border, for them, the most important thing was to find some peace and quiet,” Muzzi said.

Frances Ravensbergen, an activist with Bridges Not Borders, a refugee advocacy group in Hemmingford, said local volunteers have also reported a decline in the number of people arriving to cross through Roxham Road.

“The few people that we have seen crossing either don’t seem to be completely aware of the new regulations … and not realizing that if you’re handed back to the Americans, you may never apply for asylum again in Canada,” Ravensbergen said in an interview.

But despite the drop in people arriving at Roxham Road, Ravensbergen said she thinks scenes like the RCMP arrest on Bouchard’s property will be replicated across the country. Now that asylum seekers are blocked from using that road, they will likely try to enter Canada through other spots along the 9,000-kilometre border that separates the two countries, she said.

Border officials are also reporting a drop in the number of migrants trying to cross the border between official ports of entry. The Canada Border Services Agency said that from March 25 to April 2, it recorded 191 cases of people crossing irregularly. Out of that total, 144 claimants were returned to the U.S. in accordance with the expanded agreement; 54 were deemed eligible to make an asylum claim in Canada.

Before the new treaty went into effect, the government reported that since December of 2022, about 4,500 people were crossing through Roxham Road every month.

Now, the CBSA said that when RCMP agents or local police intercept would-be refugees trying to cross at irregular checkpoints, they take them to a designated — and official — port of entry. There, border officials determine whether or not their claim is eligible.

An asylum seeker is permitted to cross an irregular checkpoint under four circumstances: they have family members living legally in Canada; they are an accompanied minor; they have legal documents such as a Canadian visa or valid work permit; or their application for refugee status is considered in the “public interest.”

“If an individual does not meet an (agreement) exception or is otherwise determined inadmissible, they will be removed to the U.S. If the refugee claim is eligible, the person’s file will be referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board for consideration, and the person will be authorized to enter Canada to pursue their claim for protection,” Maria Ladouceur, a spokesperson for the agency, said by email.

Viviane Albuquerque, a Canadian and U.S. immigration lawyer based in Montreal, explained that once an asylum seeker has crossed Roxham Road to Canada and is deemed ineligible to claim asylum, it becomes almost impossible for the individual to seek asylum in Canada ever again.

“Once there is a determination based on your status — a refused refugee claim — it is very difficult to apply for refugee status again unless (the asylum seeker) tries to appeal the decision in court,” Albuquerque said in an interview.

Bouchard said she was hoping for a long time that Canada and the U.S. would renegotiate the Safe Third Country Agreement — to make it easier for migrants to file asylum claims in either country.

“It was just such a gut punch that it went in exactly the opposite direction to what we’d hoped, making it more dangerous and more difficult and driving people into the woods, where they’re more likely to be in danger.”

Source: Once-popular rural Quebec road for asylum seekers quiets down after U.S.-Canada deal

The safe-third-country amendment paves a balanced road to refugee protection, The deaths in the St. Lawrence River show that border ‘control’ is a fallacy

Two contrasting perspectives, Michael Barutciski of York University, praising the agreement as being balanced, Christina arguing that it will result in significant hardship, human smuggling and deaths.

I find Barutciski more realistic and his arguments more convincing.

Starting with Barutciski:

After years of controversy, the Trudeau government is putting an end to the unofficial crossings at Roxham Road, which were undermining public confidence in border integrity. While all migrants must be treated with dignity, we should also recognize that effective protection is about balancing the rights of asylum seekers with legitimate state concerns. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appears aware, at last, that asylum is a two-way street and that the situation was leading to a backlash. He announced last week with U.S. President Joe Biden that the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) will extend across the entire Canada-U.S. border. This can lead to a balanced overall policy if there is a genuine commitment to a comprehensive regional approach.

Although commentators insisted the U.S. would never agree to remove the loophole in the STCA that allowed the Roxham Road situation, the timing was right for a renegotiation. The Biden administration is leading a collaborative strategy to establish orderly migration in the Americas, and the recent scandalous revelations that U.S. officials were encouraging irregular migrants to cross at Roxham Road provided Ottawa with the additional impetus to take a broader, hemispheric approach to migration.

Even before these revelations, the application of the STCA was undermining public trust. It left the impression that the government was unable to control the border; illegal entry at Roxham Road became so easy that it was almost an invitation for undocumented migrants to try their chances at obtaining asylum in Canada. It also gave the appearance of an incoherent system favouring irregular migrants over those who present themselves at official crossings. The latter were generally turned back to the U.S. in accordance with the STCA, which stipulates that they should seek protection in the first “safe” country they enter. No protection principle could justify such a double standard, one that treated asylum seekers differently based on which part of the land border they used to enter.

The additional protocol announced recently follows the most rational option: By extending the STCA to the entire border, it guarantees that collaboration between the U.S. and Canada is not limited to official crossings. Neither country is obliged to return migrants, although they now have the formal structures to proceed this way if they so choose. The dissuasion element will make irregular migration more complicated, so the logic is that fewer migrants will choose this path. Refugee advocates and their academic allies have countered by claiming that migrants will now start to cross at more remote places, implying border control is futile. This is essentially an argument for open borders.

By amending the STCA, Ottawa has backtracked from its previous position that the 1951 Refugee Convention automatically grants every asylum seeker at Roxham Road the right to a hearing. Indeed, the word “asylum” was deliberately omitted from the convention’s 46 articles, and following a failed endeavour to adopt an asylum treaty in 1977, no further attempts have been made to codify a legally binding right to seek asylum. Just as international treaty law does not stipulate such a right, the Supreme Court’s landmark Singhdecision never determined that every asylum seeker automatically has the right to a hearing once they set foot in Canada.

Yet the government’s previous position played well to activists and academics who continue to prefer the status quo, which has an understandable appeal if the issue is simply about handling irregular migration at the border in a somewhat predictable and semi-orderly manner. However, this view remains tone-deaf to the symbolic impact of the RCMP’s credibility-sapping participation in border theatre: Until recently, border agents tried to dissuade migrants from entering illegally by yelling out that they will be arrested, even though everyone knew they would be immediately released to pursue their asylum claims in Canada.

Last month’s diplomatic development should stop this situation from continuing. It appears to be a simple version of a quid pro quo arrangement previously suggested to advance negotiations: Washington has agreed to amend the STCA, while Ottawa has committed to resettling at least 15,000 asylum seekers from Latin America. But as migration flows stabilize, the Canadian contribution should expand well beyond 15,000 resettled refugees. By tending to humanitarian needs, Canada’s labour shortages could also be addressed by new legal pathways for migrants, who have much to contribute to the economy.

Instead of the current undignified status quo that forces migrants to enter illegally at Roxham Road, ambitious collaboration could bring us closer to a humane model for orderly migration not just between Canada and the U.S., but around the world. The crucial question is whether there will be a long-term commitment.

Michael Barutciski is co-ordinator of Canadian Studies at York University’s Glendon College. He was previously director of the diplomacy program at the University of Canterbury Law School and fellow in law at Oxford University’s Refugee Studies Centre.

Source: The safe-third-country amendment paves a balanced road to refugee protection

Following with Clark-Kazak:

The recent deaths of eight people at the Canada-U.S. border are the tragic but predictable consequences of policies that fail to account for the realities of global migration.

Last week, police reported that eight bodies – including an infant and two-year-old child – were found in the St. Lawrence River near the Kanien’kehá:ka community of Akwesasne. Six adults holding Indian and Romanian citizenship, along with two Canadian children of the Romanian couple, were reportedlytrying to cross irregularly into the United States. Casey Oakes, an Akwesasne resident, is still missing.

What may surprise Canadians is that the victims appeared to be heading from Canada into the United States. But the issue of irregular migration has long cut both ways – and recently changes by both parties only make matters worse.

This tragedy occurred less than a week after U.S. President Joe Biden and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced changes to the Safe Third Country Agreement. While most of the media and political attention has focused primarily on the resulting closure of the irregular border crossing at Roxham Road in Quebec, the deal also requires, with limited exceptions, anyone claiming asylum after arriving by land to make their refugee claim in the first country they reach, either the U.S. or Canada.

The Canadian government’s primary objective appears to be to limit the overall number of refugee claims in Canada. The deal allows Canada to turn back refugee claimants at official land ports of entry, and to deport people who cross irregularly from the U.S. and subsequently make an asylum claim.

While they are small in number compared with the 2.4 million encounters by U.S. Customs and Border Protection on the country’s southern border with Mexico in 2022, Mr. Biden faced domestic political pressure to address the increasing numbers of people crossing irregularly into the U.S. from Canada. These irregular crossings, typically motivated by family and community networks and employment opportunities in the U.S., required the Americans and Canadians to publicly co-operate on the issue.

Many migrant fatalities over the past year have involved people crossing north to south. In January, 2022, the Patel family from India died while attempting to enter from Manitoba. Fritznel Richard, a Haitian man, died trying to reach his family in the U.S. from Quebec in December, 2022. In February, 2023, Jose Leos Cervantes, from Mexico, died shortly after crossing into New York State in sub-zero temperatures. These deaths occurred because there was no option like Roxham Road to allow for relatively safe, irregular passage from Canada to the U.S.

However, the resulting STCA amendment actually reduces overall immigrationpathways, thereby increasing the chances of irregular crossings and death.

Research shows that the securitization and militarization of borders has only driven up human smuggling and risky journeys on the land and sea borders of the European Union and at the U.S.-Mexico border, which the International Organization for Migration deemed “the deadliest land crossing in the world.”

While rich countries in Europe and North America benefit from globalization and the free movement of capital, many also attempt to close their borders – administratively and physically – to people seeking safety, security and a better life. These are not evidence-based policies. They are political measures to try to reassure domestic constituencies that they are “in control.”

But controlling borders – especially one as long and geographically complex as the Canada-U.S. border – is an impossible proposition. For as long as desperation remains the driver, irregular border crossings will continue, in both directions, no matter the risk.

Last month, in keeping with its decades-long patterns, Washington budgeted US$25-billion for border control, immigration detention and deportation. But despite such spending, the U.S. is estimated to have the largest undocumented population in the world, at more than 10 million. These people are often then driven into precarious employment that can lead to exploitation.

These resources would be better invested in clearing massive immigration backlogs – another problem Canada shares with the U.S. – and in creating more legal pathways to residency and citizenship. Funding could also be redirected to supporting communities along the border that are negatively affected by increased securitization and surveillance, but are otherwise neglected and marginalized. The Kanien’kehá:ka community of Akwesasne, for instance, has to contend with colonially imposed complications associated with its territory straddling Ontario, Quebec and New York State, which makes access to services (including health care) a challenge.

By following the U.S.’s lead on migration and border policies, Canada is making a costly mistake – in terms of how it is failing to invest in solutions that address the root causes of irregular migration, but also in terms of the impact their short-sighted policy making will have on human lives.

Christina Clark-Kazak is an associate professor at the University of Ottawa.

Source: The safe-third-country amendment paves a balanced road to refugee protection, The deaths in the St. Lawrence River show that border ‘control’ is a fallacy

Trudeau says orderly immigration system is needed, after deaths of eight migrants

Confidence might also be increased if the government could demonstrate a more prudent and realistic approach to immigration levels. Arguably, the rapid increase in temporary workers and students, significantly more than Permanent Residents, uncapped and not in the annual levels plan, is by itself another manifestation of less than orderly immigration:

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is reiterating the importance of an orderly immigration system as police investigate the deaths of eight migrants, including two toddlers, in the Mohawk territory of Akwesasne last week.

Last month, Canada negotiated a deal with the United States to turn away asylum seekers at unofficial border crossings like Roxham Road, closing a long-standing loophole in the Safe Third Country Agreement.

The deal means people will be turned away from the border no matter where they try to cross. The aim is for people to make their asylum claim in the first country they land in, whether it be Canada or the United States.

Migrant advocates warned the new rules would push people to take even greater risks in their efforts to cross the border, like using smugglers and moving to even more remote crossings.

A week later, the bodies of eight people were pulled from the St. Lawrence River after they tried to make it into the U.S. from Canada by boat.

The prime minister called the deaths a tragedy, but said Canada needs to maintain public confidence in the immigration system.

“When people take risks to cross our borders in an irregular fashion or if they pay criminals to get them across the border, this isn’t a system we can have confidence in,” Trudeau said in French at a press conference in Val-d’Or, Que.

Canada is prepared to welcome more immigrants than ever, he said, “but we’re going to make sure that it’s done in the right ways, appropriately.”

The government’s immigration plan says between 410,000 and 505,000 people will become permanent residents this year, which would be the highest number in recent history.

But since COVID-19 border restrictions lifted in 2021, the number of asylum claims has significantly surpassed pre-pandemic levels. Cities and provinces, particularly Quebec, have said the number of families claiming asylum have put pressure on local services.

Despite the recent clampdown at the border, the federal government set aside $1 billion for temporary shelter and health-care coverage for asylum seekers.

NDP immigration critic Jenny Kwan called on the government to suspend the Safe Third Country Agreement Monday, saying it was negotiated in secret and without consultation.

“I do fear that people will die,” said Kwan at a press conference at the irregular border crossing near Emerson, Man.

She was joined by Seidu Mohammed, a bisexual man from Ghana, whose asylum claim was rejected in America. He spent a year in immigration detention before he crossed into Canada through an irregular border crossing.

If he didn’t, he fears he would have been deported to Ghana where sexual acts between consenting people of the same gender is against the law and people who identify as LGBTQ face discrimination and violence.

Mohammed said he was terrified when he heard about the new policy.

“It’s going to put a lot of immigrants and refugees in danger, and they’re going to lose their lives from this,” he said.

Immigration Minister Sean Fraser called the deaths of the migrants in Akwesasne horrific, and said they have caused him to think about changes.

“I don’t have an announcement on a policy change today, but I can reassure you that I’m thinking very deeply about what shifts we ought to be making in Canada,” he said, reflecting specifically on the fact that the two children who died had Canadian passports.

The children were one and two years old.

Fraser said the government is looking at putting money toward some of the root causes that push people to make perilous journeys through irregular border crossings in the first place, but repeated the prime minister’s message about the importance of an orderly system.

“We want to do what we can to promote opportunities for people to come through regular pathways so they know that they’re going to be able to arrive in Canada safely, whether that’s through our refugee programs, whether that’s through our economic programs to be reunited with their families,” Fraser said at a press conference in Calgary.

Source: Trudeau says orderly immigration system is needed, after deaths of eight migrants