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

2023/09/27 Leave a comment

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

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

Why Trudeau got tough on immigration

2023/07/13 Leave a comment

One interpretation (although I always thought the impact of the tweet, in comparison to other more substantial factors, was overstated):

“To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada.” In hindsight, this tweet by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in 2017 was ill-advised. It was written in response to Trump’s executive order banning refugees and visitors from seven Muslim-majority countries. Critics point to it as the trigger for a surge of asylum-seekers at the Canadian border.

If it were true that people were escaping to Canada from the US because they feared being deported under Trump’s harsh immigration policies, then the flow of immigrants heading north would have slowed when President Biden took office. According to government data, in the period between the tweet going out and the pandemic, which slowed crossings to a trickle, almost 60,000 people made “irregular border crossings” into Canada. But afterwards, the influx returned, reaching over 20,000 in 2022, Biden’s first year in office. By February of this year, more than 10,000 people had already crossed over into Canada.

Nor were refugees put off America by President Trump. Since 2020, the number of migrants going the other way — crossing into the US from Canada — has also shot up. Last year, Homeland Security apprehended more than 100,000 migrants crossing from Canada. (For context, in 2018 US authorities arrested only 558 people on the northern border.) There is no end in sight to these “irregular crossings”, and the public has been expressing its dissatisfaction with lax immigration controls on both sides of the border.

According to the two nations’ Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA), which has been in effect since 2004, refugees have to apply for status in the first “safe country” they reach. So, they cannot apply for asylum in Canada at official border crossings with the US. However, a loophole in the agreement enables migrants crossing at unofficial border points to claim asylum after they cross. And along the 9,000km-long border, there are many places to do so, the most infamous being Roxham Road, where New York state meets Quebec.

That is, until March 25, when Roxham Road was shut down by the Canadian government. Trudeau made the announcement on the afternoon of March 24, and the policy took effect at 12:01am the next day: “To address irregular migration, we are expanding the Safe Third Country Agreement to apply not only at designated ports of entry, but across the entire land border, including internal waterways, ensuring fairness and more orderly migration between our two countries.” Biden was in Canada at the time, on his first official visit since winning the presidency. It later transpired that the neighbouring countries had signed an amendment to the STCA a year earlier, but hadn’t made the news public because officials feared untold numbers of migrants might rush to cross the border before the changes could be enacted. Now, both countries can turn away asylum seekers, no matter where they cross.

This was a shock to Canada’s reputation as an immigrant-friendly country. Here, eligible refugees receiving generous welfare benefits including government-assisted housing, healthcare, work permits, and financial support. A path to citizenship is available to anyone who can secure permanent residency in the country. But there is a feeling, among some Canadians, that migrants have started exploiting vulnerabilities in the system. Almost 70% of Quebec residents — the province that Roxham Road leads into — said they wanted this irregular entry point closed. With social services in the province overwhelmed by asylum-seekers, the federal government started transferring migrants to Niagara Falls in Ontario, which saw welfare services pushed to the brink as well. Since 2021, the Immigration Department has paid $94 million to book out entire hotels for months, in order to accommodate asylum-seekers.

The ease with which people could illegally enter through Roxham Road, according to analysts, was “almost an invitation for undocumented migrants to try their chances at obtaining asylum in Canada”. Specifically, migrants from Nigeria, who make up a big chunk of all those who cross over from Roxham Road. The majority actually possess a valid US tourist visa, flying into New York before making their way to Canada. “I went to search Google and I figured out this is what everybody is doing,” one Nigerian migrant said while crossing the border. A “disproportionate” number of Nigerians claiming asylum are doing so on the grounds of LGBT persecution, which is met with more sympathy in Canada than in the US. But concerns have been raised about the similarities in such applications, and one investigation by a Nigeria-based publication revealed how some Nigerians make up stories in an attempt to secure asylum. This has left some aid organisations worrying that legitimate claims are now more likely to be doubted.

Some migrants still have their hearts set on America, however. Those from Mexico and India make up the bulk of illegal crossings from Canada to the States, with many flying into Canada for the sole purpose of getting across the world’s longest international border without detection. Mexicans, who since 2016 can fly visa-free to Canada, often spend thousands of dollars flying into Toronto and paying smugglers to get to the US — hence Biden’s motivation to renegotiate the STCA.

And this phenomenon burst into the public consciousness when, in January 2022, the bodies of four Indian nationals (two of them minors) were found frozen to death in Manitoba, near the American border. The Patel family had come to Canada on a tourist visa, but hoped to reach family in Chicago. A documentary last year suggested that, in Gujarat, the Patels had been a comfortable, upper-middle class family with no financial troubles or experiences of racial or religious persecution. Why, then, would they risk crossing illegally into the US in the middle of winter with two young children?

Migrant rights groups almost always lay the blame for tragedies at the feet of unscrupulous smugglers and harsh government policy. Few acknowledge that the people who decide to illegally cross an international border almost always have agency. And for middle-class migrants, it’s usually not about security; it’s about status. In developing countries, attaining the “American Dream” — or another Western nation’s equivalent — is still highly aspirational. And while everyone has the right to build a good life for themselves, migrants who can pay their way into one North American nation in order to cross over into the other, depending on their preference, undermine faith in the immigration system.

Which is a problem for Trudeau. His Liberal government plans to welcome half a million new immigrants into Canada every year till 2025. (Like most developed nations, Canada has an aging population, a low birth rate, and is facing a labour shortage.) Almost 50% of Canadians already think this target is too high. If Trudeau doesn’t want public opinion turning against his plans, he needs to reassure the electorate that his government has a strong handle on who is being welcomed across our borders.

Amending the STCA is meant to signal that the government is aware of the growing unpopularity of irregular border crossers, who are seen as jumping the queue, leaving those without financial means further down the list — not to mention those waiting in refugee camps around the world. John Manley, one of the architects of the original STCA, supports the new changes, claiming that most migrants around the world are in much greater danger than those who have already found their way to the US. But there has been backlash from refugee rights advocates, with the Canadian Council for Refugees, among others, arguing that the STCA is unconstitutional. But last month, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously ruled otherwise.

The closure of Roxham Road sent a message to all those who want to migrate to Canada that the way to do so is through official channels. Two days later, the Government of Canada launched a survey to poll Canadians’ opinions. Trudeau was, apparently, ready to listen to how Canadians feel about this issue. While some advocates have been arguing that closing the loophole will have pushed people into the hands of smugglers, it’s still too early to tell what the effects of the new changes will be, though data on the past three months’ of irregular border crossings should be imminent. But whatever the outcome: the Prime Minister won’t be promoting Canada’s immigration policies on Twitter any time soon.

Source: Why Trudeau got tough on immigration

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

Regg Cohn: Here’s what our Supreme Court got right about irregular migration

2023/06/21 Leave a comment

Good assessment:

Border crossing points are perennial flashpoints in Canada.

The Canada-U.S. boundary long ago emerged as an internal dividing line, pitting two premiers against the prime minister. Our traditionally undefended frontier — now heavily patrolled — also offered fodder for the political opposition in Parliament.

An attempt to bring order to the border disorder provided fresh ammunition for refugee rights advocates to fight it out in the courts. Their lawyers argued that we dare not return migrants to the U.S. because it’s simply not a safe space for the world’s refugees (news to those who keep trying and retrying to get in).

All of which makes the sudden unanimity of Canada’s Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the bilateral and controversial Safe Third Country Agreement so remarkable. If not necessarily surprising.

After years of litigation in the courts, and lengthy negotiation in two capitals, the improvised pathways that permitted migrants to enter Canada are now at a dead end. The country’s highest court ruled last week that the bilateral pact does not violate our Charter of Rights (setting aside one question on gender rights, to be retried by the lower courts).

The 8-0 decision was the culmination of bitter arguments about the border, political and legal. But it was also predictable and inevitable, because any other outcome would lead to an unsustainable and unrealistic free-for-all.

The fight over our frontier has been a battle on two fronts: first, the original 2004 agreement (contested in the courts); second, the subsequent flashpoints at unofficial pathways (like Quebec’s Roxham Road) not covered by the bilateral agreement — a loophole that allowed the Americans to refuse to take back so-called “irregular” migrants.

The logic behind the 2004 mutual border pact was that refugee claimants who seek asylum at official crossings were deemed to have found “safe harbour” wherever they set foot first, either America or Canada. That’s because migrants have no inherent right to cherry pick between the second or third country where they put down roots.

A bona fide refugee is fleeing war or persecution — not poverty or hopelessness at home. There is no provision for fine-tuning one’s final destination (or the process of refugee determination) merely because their second stop seems to some a hostile place.

Yes, Canada needs more people. But if we fail to maintain a clear distinction abroad between our regular immigration stream for selected applicants, and a regulated refugee stream for those who don’t necessarily qualify, then domestic support will atrophy.

Canadians, like people in other high-immigration countries, still want people to play by the rules. Never mind the cliché of “queue-jumpers,” Canada cannot countenance “country shoppers” without undermining the integrity of an already overloaded refugee determination system.

Critics argued that automatically sending applicants back to America subjected them to an arbitrary determination and detention system. The Supreme Court quite rightly countered that no system is perfect, and that America is a democracy where the rule of law still prevails, even if not always to our tastes; Canada is in no position to second guess every other quasi-judicial system in the world.

The political question that preceded this month’s court ruling arose over how to deal with the glaring loophole in the Safe Third Country Agreement, by which the Americans would only take back people at official crossings. In the aftermath, tens of thousands of migrants detoured instead to Roxham Road and other unofficial pathways far from those border posts.

The surge in refugee claimants, while not massive by global standards, had an upward curve that was impossible to ignore. Shortly after winning power in 2018, Premier Doug Ford picked a fight with the federal government for failing to clamp down on the border crossings; more recently, Quebec’s François Legault pressured Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to close the bilateral loophole.

With COVID came a clampdown, as both the Americans and Canadians were loath to let an uncontrolled stream of migrants into either country. Post-pandemic, Washington belatedly recognized the benefits of restoring order — not to appease Ottawa’s concerns but to address its own insecurities about the tens of thousands of irregular migrants crossing from Canada into the U.S. Last March, Canada and the U.S. closed the loophole on unofficial crossings — and with it, shut down Roxham Road.

For all its faults, America’s refugee system cannot be upgraded or downgraded based on whoever is in power. Would critics of the U.S. change their view of our supposedly superior system if Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre one day becomes PM while the Democrats rule in Washington?

If America is such hostile territory, why do so many still risk the hazard of an irregular border crossing to the U.S., with Canada merely a way station? Let us not forget the deaths of eight migrants (from two families, one Romanian and the other Indian) trying to cross the St. Lawrence River into the U.S. at night earlier this year. Or the family of four from India’s Gujarat state that froze to death trying to cross the border from Manitoba into the U.S. in 2022.

Migrants are only human — they will take desperate actions to escape persecution or poverty at home, for which Canadians must show consideration with our refugee determination procedures. But the notion that Canada should countenance risky or merely irregular measures for those fleeing supposed uncertainty or misery in America has no serious foundation in refugee law or the Charter of Rights.

Source: Here’s what our Supreme Court got right about irregular migration

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

The new Canada-U.S. border deal will cost Canadian taxpayers at least this much

2023/04/17 Leave a comment

The formal analysis (more solid than the one on self-administered citizenship oaths):

Closing the Canada-U.S. border to asylum seekers is projected to cost Canadian taxpayers at least $60 million over 10 years. But that analysis doesn’t include costs for the Mounties to beef up “challenging” enforcement efforts.

In March, Ottawa and Washington expanded a bilateral agreement to turn back irregular migrants trying to cross into the other country for protection, but a cost-benefit analysis has only been recently published in the Canada Gazette.

“It will be challenging for the RCMP to consistently enforce the Regulations given the size and terrain of Canada’s landscape, challenges posed by Indigenous and private lands, as well as the limitations of existing border technology (e.g. sensors, cameras),” said the public notice about the amended Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA).

“Responding to reports of border crossings and intercepting irregular migrants between the ports is resource intensive and risks diverting policing resources.”

The RCMP is responsible for patrolling unofficial border crossings. It will be funded for broader initiatives to replace and modernize ISR equipment (Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance) and to form a new project team to determine technological and other needs.

But the notice said these expenditures are not treated as incremental, hence not included in the analysis.

“It is acknowledged that investment in these new resources will likely help support … the broader objective of a reduction in irregular migration following implementation of the regulatory amendments,” it said.

The estimated $61.5-million cost in today’s dollar value only covers transition costs, upfront capital costs, and ongoing processing, operations and enforcement costs for the immigration department and Canada Border Service Agency. It includes:

  • $560,000 this year only for communications products, IT costs, updates to program delivery instructions, other administrative materials, and training costs;
  • $1.28 million over the next decade to purchase vehicles to transport migrants, and for acquisition and installation costs for office equipment and renovations to create additional processing spaces such as interview rooms due to more dispersed arrival points for asylum claimants across the border; and
  • $59.61 million over 10 years for ongoing processing, operations and enforcement costs for tasks such as eligibility determinations, investigations, intelligence, reviews, infrastructure oversight, litigation and vehicle maintenance.

As a result of evolving migration routes, officials say there will be additional policing costs in border communities and in popular destination cities to respond to calls, conduct investigations related to irregular migration, and to respond to suspected cases of human smuggling.

The public notice says there will also be potential costs or risks for asylum claimants who choose to game the system.

“Claimants may face increased danger, such as involvement with human smugglers and may be at risk for physical, mental or financial abuse. They may also face risks from exposure to extreme weather conditions if they cross at remote locations or fail to secure access to shelter,” it said.

“This could increase the health and security risks of living in dangerous natural habitats, as well as a possible lack of access to food, water, health care and other basic services.”

Since 2017, Canada has seen a surge of irregular migrants via the U.S., which reached almost 40,000 asylum seekers last year. More than 90 per cent of them came through the world-famous Roxham Road in Quebec, which put pressure on the country’s asylum system and local housing and community services.

Restricting access to asylum throughout the entire border will improve border integrity and support the standardized treatment of all arrivals, regardless of where migrants cross, said the notice, which also cautions against any promised outcomes on the level of irregular migration.

“The impact on asylum volumes is dependent on many factors, including the ability to effectively address border crossings as new irregular routes emerge and the risk that individuals will continue to evade application of the STCA,” it said.

“As such, the extent to which volumes may be reduced is largely unknown and the magnitude of this impact cannot be estimated; therefore, for cost-benefit analysis purposes, the benefits of a reduction in asylum claimants are not quantified or monetized.”

It also noted that no public consultations were undertaken for the changes to the bilateral pact because it would have created a surge of migrants trying to sneak into the country before the new rule took effect.

Source: The new Canada-U.S. border deal will cost Canadian taxpayers at least this much

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

ICYMI – Keller: Why the Trudeau government was right to close Roxham Road

2023/04/11 Leave a comment

Good commentary pointing out the reality of trade-offs and the unreality of “open borders” and permanent residence for all:

If you’ve been dreaming of a guilt-free, morally pure, no-hard-choices solution to the problem of irregular border crossers into Canada, illegal border crossings in the United States, overwhelmed refugee determination systems in both countries and people smuggling in all directions, I offer you this simple answer: open borders.

Under open borders, anyone who wanted to move to Canada could. Simple as that. If 10 million immigrants wanted to come to Canada this year, then 10 million would.

There’d be no more refugee claimants sent back to the United States under the Safe Third Country Agreement. Anyone would be free to enter Canada, work as soon as they arrived, remain as long as they liked and become a citizen. There would be no need for an Immigration and Refugee Board to determine who is or isn’t a genuine legal refugee; there’d be no need for refugee claims at all. We would also get rid of Canada’s immigration points system, which gives priority to people with advanced educations and in-demand skills. We’d admit everyone, and give priority to no one.

There would be no annual immigration targets, such as this year’s target of 465,000 immigrants, including 266,000 economic immigrants, 78,000 spouses and children, 28,500 parents and grandparents and more than 92,000 refugees and compassionate cases. Under open borders, Canada would not select immigrants, and “no one is illegal” would not be a slogan. It would be the law.

While you ponder that, I should make it clear that I don’t think an open border is right for Canada. But unless you do, there’s no way to design an immigration system that doesn’t involve choices – sometimes hard and unpleasant ones – about who gets in and who doesn’t. There’s no avoiding it.

Many Canadians are uncomfortable with the closing of the Roxham Road-sized loophole in the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement. I believe the government made the right move, but the discomfort of the critics is not without reason – real people are affected, and not in pleasant ways.

However, unless you go all the way to open borders, every approach to immigration and refugee policy involves at least some people who want to come to Canada being denied entry. It’s inevitable.

The Roxham Road loophole was not a principled response to any of that. A Canadian family hoping to bring in their grandparents still had to apply from overseas and wait in a queue. Ditto regular immigrants from overseas. Same story for refugee claimants from Syria or Afghanistan in a refugee camp.

But if you were from a country where U.S. visa rules are loose enough, and you had enough cash for a plane ticket, you could fly to the United States and then slide into Canada’s refugee-determination system at Roxham Road. Or if you were able to get to Mexico, make it across the U.S. border and then head north, you could similarly jump the queue and make your claim directly on Canadian soil.

But every successful refugee claim at Roxham Road was quietly but effectively reducing the number of spots available to people in refugee camps an ocean away.

What’s more, unless our policy is that everyone who claims asylum gets asylum, we need some sort of legal process to figure out who is a refugee and who isn’t. Canada has such a system and, after detailed investigations that tend to last for years, it finds that many refugee claimants are not refugees, and orders them deported. That’s what happened to one of the families that recently died trying to illegally cross from Canada into the United States though Akwesasne Mohawk territory.

And then there’s the underpinning of our entire immigration strategy. The Trudeau government aims to raise immigration to 500,000 permanent residents a year by 2025 – roughly double the level under the Harper and Chrétien governments. That move was justified in 2016 by the government’s Advisory Council on Economic Growth as a plan for, well, economic growth. A higher population, said the council, would expand the economy, but only if new immigrants are more productive than average Canadians will each slice of pie grow faster than the number of forks. If immigrants are less productive than Canadians, the number of forks will grow faster than the pie.

“An increase in overall economic output (GDP) is a positive thing for Canada,” wrote the council, “but only if the expansion translates to a rise in living standards for the average Canadian (GDP per capita). This goal can be achieved by focusing the recommended increase in immigration flows among educated and highly skilled workers, and those with specialized skill sets lacking in Canada.”

In other words, Canada’s immigration policy is not just about having more Canadians, but more educated, skilled and productive Canadians. To do that, newcomer immigrants have to be mostly young, educated and skilled. One big knock against the Liberal government is that while many new immigrants meet the criteria, too many do not. Immigration can raise everyone’s living standards, but only if we’re selective about who we let in, and who we do not.

To govern is to choose. There’s no getting around it. Nowhere is that more true than at the border.

Source: Why the Trudeau government was right to close Roxham Road

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

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

2023/04/07 Leave a comment

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

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

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

2023/04/05 Leave a comment

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

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

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

2023/04/05 Leave a comment

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

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , ,

Manley: Canada’s empathy for refugees isn’t limitless, so securing our border is key

2023/03/30 Leave a comment

Sensible and realistic, and useful reminder of the reasons behind the STCA. The right-leaning Liberal in contrast to the op-ed Here’s a better fix for Roxham Road by his left-leaning former Cabinet colleagues Lloyd Axworthy and Allan Rock:

Twenty-one years after I negotiated the Safe Third Country Agreement in 2002 as part of the post-9/11 Smart Border Declaration, I applaud the changes made to that agreement this past week by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and President Joe Biden.

The 2002 agreement enabled Canada to return to the United States individuals claiming refugee status who entered Canada from that country at designated, regular border crossings.

The new agreement simply extends that policy to individuals attempting to enter Canada through so-called “informal” border crossings like Roxham Road.

Canada sought the agreement in 2002 for reasons that seem all too familiar today. Refugee claimants found their way in huge numbers to legal border crossing areas such as Windsor, Ont., Fort Erie, Ont., and Niagara Falls, Ont.

In those days, the available support systems were overwhelmed by the large number of claimants. The refugee determination process became backlogged, often taking two years or more to reach a decision on the validity of a claim of refugee status. The number of refugee claimants were inflated by efforts of profiteers in the U.S. who collected and delivered these people to the Canadian border, often by bus from Buffalo or other central points.

In more recent years, the situation at Roxham Road developed because of a loophole in the agreement: It became a magnet simply because it, and other areas at which illegal crossings could be attempted, were not specifically included in the original agreement.

Canada’s position was, and remains, that refugee claimants, having somehow made their way to the U.S., should make their claim there. Those who choose to attempt to enter at “informal” crossings are in effect displacing or queue-jumping other claimants.

For context, it is important to remember that, in the aftermath of 9/11, many Americans falsely tried to portray Canada as a safe haven for terrorists intent on attacking the U.S. At the time, both then-senator Hillary Clinton and former House speaker Newt Gingrich, who agreed on very little else, were reported to have falsely claimed that the 9/11 terrorists had entered the U.S. from Canada. Our openness as a society was being turned against us, putting at risk our commercial interests. As Ms. Clinton once said to me: “Security trumps trade.”

Since then, the world’s refugee problem has only worsened: The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) estimates that, in 2022, there were 103 million forcibly displaced persons worldwide. The enormous scale of this human tragedy is difficult to comprehend: If all these people were situated in one country, it would be the 14th most populous in the world. Most of those 103 million are in much greater danger of harm than those who have already found their way into the U.S., some of whom seek to enter Canada.

There is no question that Canada should continue to help house this burden of displaced humanity. But Canada also has a duty to its own citizens to enforce its laws and manage its territorial borders as part of its system of rule of law, both national and international, for the safety and well-being of its citizens.

Canada, in recent years, has taken in more refugees in absolute numbers than some Western countries our size or bigger. Refugees all around the world wait, often for years, in camps from which there is no escape. Canada has historically been a lifeline for many of these individuals. We can more than meet our global responsibility without taking in persons fleeing the United States.

Canadians have proven themselves to be open to immigration, demonstrating a willingness to pitch in to assist refugees, be they from African countries, Ukraine, Syria, Vietnam, or any other of the many venues of war, famine and persecution.

But Canadian goodwill is not bottomless and could be put at risk if some newcomers are perceived to be queue-jumpers, attempting to gain unfair advantage.

Past prime ministers and, no doubt, our current Prime Minister, feel and understand the burden of Canadian responsibility to the world’s victims of hunger, conflict and persecution, while also recognizing that Canadians’ generosity and sense of fair play must not be stretched beyond their limits.

John Manley is the former deputy prime minister and a current senior adviser with Bennett Jones LLP.

Source: Manley: Canada’s empathy for refugees isn’t limitless, so securing our border is key

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

Axworthy and Rock: Here’s a better fix for Roxham Road

2023/03/29 Leave a comment

Predictable, and only workable in the context of the excessively high and increasing immigration levels. But not necessarily in the context of an immigration policy that takes into the account of the impact on housing, healthcare and infrastructure:

Ottawa pundits say that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau scored a political win by securing President Joe Biden’s agreement to renegotiate the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA). Henceforth, it will apply across the entire Canada-U.S. border, and asylum seekers can be turned away at any crossing point. Ottawa has thereby responded adroitly to Quebec Premier François Legault’s complaints about the flow of migrants entering Quebec at the infamous Roxham Road border crossing.

But there is something that neither the Prime Minister nor the President mentioned in their announcement: the impact of their decision on the men, women and children fleeing violence and persecution who had hoped to cross the Canadian border after feeling anything but safe in the United States. The vast majority are not in any way a threat to our security. They are ordinary people searching for sanctuary by putting themselves and their families at grave risk on a perilous journey, one they’d hoped would end with a Canadian border crossing.

We are left to imagine the bitter disappointment they will feel when instead of a portal to Canada they are met with a locked gate, a warning sign and no choice but to face the notoriously hostile American border security officials. As we have learned by watching the Mediterranean, some, in their desperation, will look for other points of entry to Canada by taking greater risks and putting their lives in danger. One “loophole” may have been closed, but others will no doubt appear.

“It’s what they deserve,” some will say. “Play by the rules! Don’t jump the queue!” But almost all of them are vulnerable survivors who escaped persecution and oppression simply to assert an ancient right – the right to asylum.

The right to seek asylum is codified in the United Nations’ 1951 Refugee Convention. Before the STCA came into effect in 2002, under international law the convention obligated Canada to allow refugees to enter and remain here until the validity of their claim for asylum could be determined by a tribunal. Under the STCA, Canada effectively subcontracted this obligation to the United States.

There was another matter that neither our Prime Minister nor the President mentioned last week: the constitutional validity of the STCA is to be considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in the coming months. Depending on what the court decides, our government could end up not with a political win, but instead a major loss of credibility. The court could send Parliament back to the drawing board to legislate a new migration policy based on the paramountcy of human rights, instead of expediency.

It is fitting that the issue will hinge on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which has had a major influence on Canadian attitudes toward migration. Polls have consistently shown that Canadians have a strong attachment to an open system of immigration. While Mr. Biden and Mr. Trudeau spoke of shared values, there is one major exception: Canadians differ from Americans in our commitment to pluralism and welcoming newcomers. Why, then, are we doubling down on a policy so inconsistent with that distinctive characteristic?

There is a better way. As Minister of Immigration, Sean Fraser demonstrated Canada’s openness by setting a target to welcome half a million newcomers to Canada in 2025. However, he also announced that the number of refugees admitted would be reduced from 76,000 in 2023, to 73,000 in 2025. It is not clear whether the 73,000-person figure will now include the 15,000 Central American migrants Canada promised it would assist the U.S. in resettling during President Biden’s visit last week. In any case, we should strive to dedicate 20 per cent of our 2025 immigration goal to the resettlement of forcibly displaced people, taking in at least 100,000 in 2025. We can work to build up the capacity of our U.S. diplomatic posts, and our U.S.-Canada border crossing points, to receive, process and settle those with legitimate asylum claims.

Let’s take on the diplomatic task of building a collaborative, hemispheric migration network and devote the necessary resources to make it work. We can draw on our ability to convene, and our talent for negotiation, by inviting a group of like-minded governments, civil society groups, and international organizations to a summit aimed at reviving and strengthening the imperilled right to asylum. Migration is increasing, driven by climate change and conflict. We have to get things right at our border – politically and morally.

A border that assures security while respecting asylum seekers and welcoming migrants? Now that would be a real win for Canada.

Lloyd Axworthy is a former foreign minister and current chair of the World Refugee and Migration Council. Allan Rock is a former attorney-general and minister of justice, and a member of the World Refugee and Migration Council.

Source: Here’s a better fix for Roxham Road

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →