Immigration experts say Trump’s ‘mass deportations’ pledge could cause surge in illegal border crossings into Canada if he wins back the White House 

2024/08/26 Leave a comment

Opinions of note, generally reasoned and realistic:

…Michael Barutciski, a lawyer and associate professor of international studies at York University’s Glendon College, says the situation will depend on how the Canadian government responds to Trump and his immigration policies.

“If there’s a general sense that people who are not legally in the U.S. will be removed or deported, it’s logical that anyone unsure about their status in the U.S. will think it might make sense to go north to Canada,” Barutciski said.

Barutciski noted that the key question is: “What does the government do?” which he sees as “an indication of how this potential flow will be handled. Will it be stopped or will it be encouraged?”

He warned that “If Canada sends a welcoming signal—tweets about how everyone is welcome here—we’ll get tens of thousands, maybe 100,000 or even millions.”

Christian Leuprecht, a professor at the Royal Military College and Queen’s University and a Munk senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, also said a Trump presidency could result in an uptick at Canada’s southern border but does not think it would go beyond the tens of thousands.

“The bulk of people who presented irregularly at the border [during Trump’s first term] were people who always intended to cross into Canada and were not fleeing the Trump administration,” he said.

That being said, he explained that if Trump is re-elected, “the small portion of people fleeing the Trump administration would likely increase, but that increase would not be particularly significant, possibly in the thousands, possibly in the tens of thousands.”

Like Barutciski, Leuprecht said the way the Canadian government handles the situation will impact our borders. He said there is a risk the Trudeau government will forgo the rule of law in an attempt to turn the border issue into an American-style wedge for domestic political gain.

“The risk is not actually masses of people showing up on the border here, because Canada can simply invoke the rule of law and say that the better part of 90 percent of the people who would show up would not qualify,” he said. “The risk here is that the Trudeau government will actually violate its own provisions and the rule of law for political reasons so that he can use it as a wedge issue.”

The Trump refugee narrative “is one that the current federal government loves to propagate.”i

Muzaffar Chishti, a lawyer and senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, an American non-partisan pro-immigration think tank, casts doubt on the American government’s ability to deport people en masse.

“There are legal impediments that the former president seems generally unaware of. There are constitutional provisions of habeas corpus and due process of law, which strongly impede removing anyone without sending them to a court,” he said.

“Second, there are operational realities—they are not all in one place, not in a camp where you could just extract them. They are intermingled in communities across the country, and getting them out is very, very operationally difficult. Third, there will be a political backlash. Almost all of them are employed, and if they are taken out of their jobs. There could be outcries even from Trump’s own base.”

Chishti also noted that he doesn’t think that the goal of a potential second Trump administration would necessarily be to successfully deport 11 million people, it would rather be “to instill a sense of fear,” which one assumes would discourage other border crossers.

“I think people who respond to that instinct of fear may want to move to Canada. There’s a real possibility of that happening,” he said, given Canada’s reputation as being more receptive to asylum seekers.

What about the Safe Third Country Agreement?

In March 2023, Canada and the U.S. modified the Safe Third Country Agreement so that individuals could no longer make asylum claims from unofficial ports of entry, closing the loophole used by asylum seekers.

However, experts consulted by The Hub said the new March 2023 deal is not a silver bullet and could lead to new problems.

Leuprecht said those who qualify under the exemptions will take advantage and apply, leading to an increase in legal asylum claims.

“We will see a small increase in people who have a legitimate claim to refugee or asylum status, who will present at ports of entry,” he said.

He is also concerned that those without legitimate asylum claims will attempt to cross into Canada illegally at unsupervised, unofficial ports of entry, similar to how illegal immigrants enter the United States from Mexico.

“We will see a small increase in human smuggling across the border.”

Chishti echoed this sentiment, which he said will be a concern of the Canadian government.

“If there is a Trump administration, you could see much more of a commercial enterprise, where you’ll have criminal ranks getting involved,” he said.

“That, I think, will create a sense of chaos and disorder when you will see people being caught in the woods, you know, trying to sneak through, and then you will see the people’s private farms being encroached on, and all that.”

He added that this “is the kind of disorder that creates a political backlash.”

…Experts told The Hub it was crucial for Canada to be prepared and take a series of actions to promote the rule of law and orderly legal immigration, in light of a possible second Trump administration.

“We actually have to start controlling the border with more resources,” said Barutciski. “More border control sends the signal that there are rules to get into Canada.”

“Don’t give off the image to the earth that the integrity of the system has been undermined. That you’re generous and that you don’t really control this. You can’t continue like that.”

He also urged Canada to address its immigration policy issues regardless of who wins the U.S. election. “The current numbers and the way people are coming here is not sending a good signal. It’s a system that is losing credibility. Even if Kamala Harris wins and Trump isn’t President, Canada still has a very difficult situation.”

Leuprecht said Canada needs to be willing to deport those who are not in this country for the right reasons. “We want to make sure we send the right message: “[That] Canada is not the country to go to unless you have a legitimate claim and that you will be deported if you show up here if you do not qualify under the rules.”

He noted that this “would be a significant change in narrative, because, in Canada, we traditionally do not deport people, even when they don’t qualify under the rules. The deportation numbers are tiny in Canada.”

Chishti meanwhile stressed that Canada must do its best to avoid a chaotic situation like the one the U.S. has faced at its southern border.

“The sense of disorder never works, even if it’s a small number of people,” he said. “People like immigrants, but they don’t like chaotic scenes about immigrants, because it creates a sense that we no longer have control.”

Source: Immigration experts say Trump’s ‘mass deportations’ pledge could cause surge in illegal border crossings into Canada if he wins back the White House

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

Leuprecht: Closing Roxham Road loophole a benefit to all migrants

2023/04/15 Leave a comment

Of note:

To stem the surge in irregular migration at Roxham Road, the U.S. and Canada recently extended their Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA), to apply between ports of entry as well. Under the renegotiated STCA migrants must apply to a Canadian agency before crossing from the U.S. into Canada, and vice versa.

Both countries can now turn back asylum seekers attempting to cross irregularly or without authorization. This “new deal” is good news for migrants and for the continent overall. In lieu of border disorder, it affirms three fundamental principles of a sustainable migratory system: the orderly processing of documented migrants, due process and the rule of law, as well as the efficient and effective use of scarce public resources.

Migrant advocates often argue that borders should be open: Whoever shows up at a border should be allowed to cross and lodge a claim. But who shows up is not random. Rather, Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest is fundamentally incompatible with a principled approach to the protection of refugees and asylum seekers. Instead of unequal access for those who can afford to pay, the STCA is an important step toward levelling the playing field for all vulnerable people in genuine need of protection.

Neither domestic nor international law offer an internationally accepted definition of “migrant.” To the contrary, the careless and indiscriminate use of the term ignores the democratic socio-political process that defines a non-citizen’s status, which determines conditions of admissibility that distinguish undocumented migrants from economic immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers. States have legal and moral obligations to immigrants and refugees, and to consider asylum claims. Under domestic and international law, these obligations differ by such criteria as human vulnerabilities, labour needs and other material and ethical considerations.

Public perception of queue jumping at Roxham Road challenges the legitimacy of a well-administered migration policy that is fair for the most vulnerable and grounded in the rule of law. Irregular migration puts at risk the integrity, sustainability and legitimacy of the social contract on which the domestic migratory regime is based. Such a contract preserves the integrity of a state’s borders and the successful political and economic socialization and integration of migrants, as well as social justice and the collective benefit of migration in fostering prosperity.

These are the three cornerstones for the legal regime that admitted a record one million newcomers (immigrants and non-permanent residents) to Canada in 2022. However, polls show that the impression that government is no longer able or committed to the orderly management of the state’s borders causes popular support for legal migration to decline and risks stoking nativist populism that calls into question the sustainability of the entire migratory system.

With population expected to grow by 2.5 billion in the Global South over the next 25 years, that system is coming under massive strain. The number of people who strive for asylum or refugee status in the Global North vastly exceeds the fiscal and social capacity of receiving countries. The current refugee system sprung up after the Second World War in an acknowledgement that certain people deserve temporary protection. Evidence in Canada and the U.S. shows that many asylum seekers today are not seeking temporary protection: their intent is to immigrate.

In a world where travel is relatively cheap and easy, refugee and asylum provisions have become a back door for economic immigrants who would not otherwise be admissible, and who do not qualify under exemptions that would allow them to lodge a claim at an official port of entry. In 2022, for example, 40,000 people crossed into Canada irregularly from New York at Roxham Road, whose location has made it a semi-unofficial port of irregular entry. Yet, almost half had entered the U.S. legally. At Roxham Road, 40 per cent who cross end up having their claims denied. Although the rate is above average, even failed claimants are unlikely to be removed.

For all intents and purposes, many are economic migrants. Claimants originate in countries marred by conflict, corruption and dire economic conditions: Central America, Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti. Sophisticated human smuggling networks, which fall under the UN Convention on Transnational Organized Crime, prey on their misery. Yet, it is not illegal for someone to avail of the services of a smuggler or even to commit identity fraud for the purposes of making an asylum claim. In fact, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime estimates the vast majority of people who try to make it to North America engage the services of human smugglers and what is now a $10-billion-a-year industry.

The STCA discourages irregular (asylum) or illegal entry (human smuggling) at Roxham Road. Claimants who fall under an exemption can still register their claims at Lacolle, Que., which is the closest point of entry. The only “new” element is that on either side of the border claims have to be registered at a formal port of entry. The renewed STCA manifests the open border paradox: co-operative bilateral and binational governance and border management is actually essential to advance mutual security, prosperity and democracy, while mitigating the exploitation of vulnerable migrants.

To be sure, the STCA is no silver bullet. Its effectiveness hinges on co-ordinated enforcement at and beyond the border, Canada stepping up to take a bilateral and trilateral approach with Mexico and the United States to help relieve despair at the U.S.-Mexico border, far-reaching reforms to the UN Convention on Refugees and to the U.S. asylum system, as well as greater access to legal migration pathways in the Global North, where jobs are aplenty and demand for unskilled labour is high.

Victims in need of protection should have equal opportunity to lodge their claim, offshore, while people on the move should lodge a claim in the first country where it is safe for them to do so. Instead of ideological turf wars over the STCA by critics intent on stigmatizing inequalities between the U.S. and Canadian systems, comprehensive reform of the North American and global migration systems is in order if such tragedies as the detention centre fire in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, that killed 40 last month, and the eight migrants who drowned in the St. Lawrence River two weeks ago, are to be prevented.

Special to National Post

Christian Leuprecht is Professor at the Royal Military College of Canada and Queen’s University, and a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera is Professor in the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University. 

Source: Opinion: Closing Roxham Road loophole a benefit to all migrants

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

The End of the (Roxham) Road: Leuprecht on “Seeking coherence on Canada’s border migration compact” and some fundamental flaws

2020/02/11 Leave a comment

Reading Christian Leuprecht’s recent above study for MLI one statement caught my eye in particular, his assertion that:

“…. the timing and implementation of actual changes in regulations initiated by President Trump, which have expanded the remit of migrants who are now at risk of deportation, appear to have had little effect on the flow of irregular migrants crossing into Canada.

This study is skeptical of Trump as the arsonist: his policies are merely an accelerant on a slow-burning fire. A series of factors had affected migration from the United States to Canada prior to the 2016 US presidential election. However politically expedient, misidentifying Trump as a causal rather than an intervening variable is problematic insofar as it leads to a misinformed prescription, such as simply waiting out the current US presidential administration in the mis- guided belief that Trump and his policies are merely an aberration.”

As evidence, he cites the study by Craig Damian Smith, Changing U.S. Policy and Safe-Third Country “Loophole” Drive Irregular Migration to Canada, which states the contrary:

“The Trump administration’s decision not to extend a long-standing Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation for some 46,000 Haitians was the catalyst for the drastic increase in asylum claims in Canada in 2017. In April 2017, just 140 Haitians crossed into Canada at Roxham Road. The following month, the number increased to 1,355, and to 3,505 that June. Roughly half of the 6,500 Haitians who arrived during the April 2017 – June 2019 period examined, were U.S. residents, with the rest arriving from Haiti and third countries, particularly Brazil. Thus an announced U.S. policy change resulted in roughly 7.5 percent of all Haitians in the United States with TPS choosing Canada rather than risking deportation, moving to a third country, or remaining unauthorized in the United States.”

The various other measures, that Leuprecht cites as pre-Trump reasons for the spike (“electronic Travel Authorization (eTA) for visa-exempt nationals, cracked down on human traffickers, used enhanced technology to reduce fake passports, and improved intelligence sharing on at-risk travellers”) are more germane to the overall influx of irregular arrivals rather than the almost quadrupling that occurred between June and July 2017 (RCMP interceptions) and which have since stabilized as per the chart below (“the new normal”):

The following chart looks at overall inland claims (regular and irregular), again highlighting the post-Trump impact:

A marked increase in irregular border crossers, especially outside of official ports of entry, has put Canada’s immigration and refugee system under scrutiny and fuelled an emotionally charged debate with important policy implications for Ottawa, the provinces, and Canada-US relations: Who should qualify for asylum, or refugee protection, under domestic and international law? Proponents defend migrants’ unequivocal legal entitlement to lodge a claim as a refugee in Canada; critics deem these irregular crossings to be an end-run around Canada’s refugee system by breaking – or at least abusing – the law.

In an immigrant country with a checkered history of immigration policy, to champion the underdog migrant who actually makes it to Canada is par for the course. However, this lenient attitude has effectively turned irregular migration into a back door to Canada: A disproportion- ate number of refugee claims by irregular migrants turn out to be unfounded yet few rejected claimants ever end up being deported.

A disproportionate number of refugee claims by irregular migrants turns out to be unfounded.

On one hand, irregular migration is a function of a complex interplay of domestic, bilateral, and international factors. On the other hand, the Canadian dislike for US President Donald Trump has given rise to a narrative that attributes the surge in irregular migration to the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election. However convenient and appealing, simplistic explanations also tend to be wrong or, as this study explains, at least inchoate. This study lays out the myriad aggravating political factors in the US that predate the Trump administration.

At the same time, Canada has implemented the electronic Travel Authorization (eTA) for visa-exempt nationals, cracked down on human traffickers, used enhanced technology to reduce fake passports, and improved intelligence sharing on at-risk travellers. While these measures have reduced the number of irregular migrants arriving by air and sea, they have made crossing by land from the US much more attractive for those who prefer Canada as a destination. Contrary to claims that most of those who are crossing are taking flight from the Trump regime, about two-thirds of asylum seekers crossing irregularly into Canada by land actually enter the United States legally on a visa for the sole purpose of making their way to Canada. By way of example, Saudi nationals have obtained American visas at the embassy in Riyadh under false pretense, intent on entering Canada to claim asylum.

Between 2016 and 2017 irregular migration into Quebec, primarily from New York state across the now infamous Roxham Road, surged by 230 percent. Although not wholly without precedent, these numbers are nonetheless high by historical standards. Through September 2019, 12,080 irregular migrants had been apprehended by the RCMP out of 46,165 total claims, or 26.2 percent of claims, in 2019. The 2019 numbers are a decline from the RCMP apprehension of roughly 20,000 irregular migrants in each of the two previous years, although at a rate of 1,200 a month in the fourth quarter, the final tally for 2019 will probably range around 15,700. It appears to be a case of squeezing the snake: total claims from all sources are running close to 6,500 a month in the third quarter of 2019 compared to 4,900 a month during the same quarter in 2018.

Canada’s migratory regime is based on a social contract. Recent trends challenge the integrity, sustainability, and legitimacy of that social contract because they undermine the cornerstones of Canada’s migratory regime writ large, and especially its approach to refugees:

  • the legitimacy of a well-administered migration policy that is grounded in the rule of law and preserves the integrity of Canada’s borders;
  • the successful political and economic socialization and integration of migrants; and migration’s collective benefit in fostering Canadian prosperity.

How, then, is Canada to confront the phenomenon of global migration in a way that respects the rule of law while preserving the legitimacy of domestic migration regimes?

As challenges to the integrity of border management and policy have compounded over the past 25 years or so, binational and bilateral cooperation between Canada and the United States has expanded incrementally. After all, open borders depend on extensive cross-border cooperation for their effectiveness and legitimacy. This is the premise that informs a sustainable approach to irregular migration across Canada’s land border between ports of entry.

The government is currently exploring extending the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) beyond ports of entry to cover the entire land border. This is a better option than unilaterally suspending the STCA, as some commentators have prescribed. Yet, given the disproportionate number of refugee claims at inland offices, extending the STCA to cover the land border is un- likely to solve the migration problem facing Canada.

This study lays out a cooperative strategy with the aim of sustaining a coherent border-migration compact that includes:

  • weighing the costs and benefits of changing Canada’s STCA with the United States;
  • obviating the need to cross between ports of entry by reinstating the “Direct Back” provision under Section 41 of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, which would allow claimants to lodge their claims for refugee status from the United States;
  • enhancing current bilateral and binational administrative, intelligence and enforcement cooperation; and
  • acquiring better data to drive (more) informed and timely decision-making.

The cumulative effect of both regular and back-door immigration risks undermining popular support for migration altogether. Polling data suggest that trend is well underway. These targeted measures are designed to reinforce confidence in Canada’s commitment to managing its borders, the integrity of the refugee migration system, the prospects of the political and economic integration of migrants, and consequences for the country’s prosperity as a whole.

Source: https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pdf/20191108_MLI_ROXHAM_ROAD_Leuprecht_PAPER_FWeb.pdf 

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

Extremist travellers aren’t about to go away: Leuprecht

2015/08/13 Leave a comment

Christian Leuprecht’s contrarian view in support of  the proposed travel ban to countries where ISIS or other terror organizations are active:

Given the ease of communication and travel in the 21st century, the phenomenon of ideologically inspired travellers looking to join violent extremist causes is not about to go away. In fact, the ubiquity of social, economic and political conditions, especially throughout the Middle East, that fuel ideological extremism will likely mean extremist travellers will become even more prevalent.

Over the past decade, the United Nations Security Council has passed several resolutions, binding on all member countries – including Canada – to stem the flow of Foreign Terrorist Fighters, including Resolution 2178 in 2014. Political stripes notwithstanding, the next federal government is bound to find itself under continued pressure to innovate measures to counter and prevent terrorist-related activity. In this light, Canadians stand to benefit from a more informed debate on issues of national security. No better time, then, to raise legislative proposals than during an election campaign and afford Canadians the opportunity to cast their lot on the issue at the urn.

Extremist travellers aren’t about to go away – The Globe and Mail.

Filed under Radicalization Tagged with ,

Legal distinction between terrorists and criminals is ‘hazy,’ experts say

2015/02/17 Leave a comment

Good discussion among experts on some of the challenges in defining terrorism (beyond the obvious cases):

“The problem of defining terrorism has been a thorny one from the get-go,” said terrorism expert John Thompson, vice president of Strategic Capital and Intelligence Group.

“Terrorism overlaps with so many other activities. When does a violent protest become terrorism? When does some sort of psychotic episode where someone is acting out become terrorism? It’s a very hazy border.”

In Canada, section 83.01 of the Criminal Code defines terrorism as an act committed “in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause” with the intention of intimidating the public’s security or compelling a person, government or organization to do or refrain from doing an act.

Thompson said this definition was intentionally general and open to interpretation, but the key element is a political or ideological motivation.

“Terrorists can attack literally anything and they have, but the motivation has to be more political than anything else. Terrorism has always got an ideology involved in it,” he said.

Two suspects [Halifax shopping mall planned attack] have been charged with conspiracy to commit murder. Had they been accused of terrorism, the range of offences and potential punishment would have been much greater, said Thompson.

“Some of our terrorism legislation is high-powered and we don’t want it to be used for every single case,” he said.

Legal distinction between terrorists and criminals is ‘hazy,’ experts say – The Globe and Mail.

Filed under Radicalization Tagged with , , ,

Majority of Canadians worry about domestic terrorism, according to new survey

2014/11/25 Leave a comment

Results are not that surprising, given recent events, and given that civil liberties rarely do well in public polling.

But encouraging that people recognize the importance of prevention and the contributing role of mental illness and marginalization:

Almost two-thirds of Canadians believe homegrown terrorism is a serious issue, but most do not perceive a threat from radicalized individuals in their communities, according to a new survey.

The national poll, conducted in the wake of deadly attacks on Canadian soldiers, found that just over half of respondents supported new anti-terror legislation that would boost the powers of Canada’s spies. Another 22 per cent said the government should go even further, suggesting they have not been swayed by civil liberties concerns.

At the same time, those surveyed recognized that there are many factors behind radicalization — religion, mental illness and marginalization — and seemed open to a range of preventative measures, not just punitive ones.

“People are sensitive to the fact this is a complex issue that requires a comprehensive approach,” said Christian Leuprecht, a security expert at the Royal Military College of Canada and Queen’s University.

Majority of Canadians worry about domestic terrorism, according to new survey.

Filed under Polling, Radicalization Tagged with , ,