Border crossings from Canada into New York, Vermont and N.H. are up tenfold. Local cops want help.

More on the southern flow at the border:

On the snowy border between New York and Canada, the local sheriff’s office is calling for the U.S. Border Patrol to put more manpower behind what the locals call a growing crisis: The number of illegal border crossings in the area over the last five months is nearly 10 times what it was over the same time last year, and the border crossers are in danger of freezing to death.

From Oct. 1 to Feb. 28, about 2,000 migrants crossed the border between Canada and New Hampshire, Vermont and New York south through the forests, compared to just 200 crossings in the same period the previous year.

The migrants are mainly from Mexico, and they can travel to Canada without visas before they cross illegally into the U.S., often to reunite with their families.

Last weekend, Clinton County, New York, Sheriff David Favro’s team assisted Border Patrol in rescuing 39 migrants, some whose clothes had frozen to their bodies.

“We are seeing more and more people, and it can be a deadly terrain if you’re not familiar with it,” Favro said.

He said responding to rescues like that has taxed the resources of his department, already stretched thin to cover the residents of his rural county, population 80,000, which shares about 30 miles of border with the Canadian province of Quebec.

“The only way to really be able to cover and protect [the northern border] is boots on the ground,” Favro said.

Just last week, Customs and Border Protection added 25 agents to the area, the Swanton Sector, to deter migration. But Favro and other locals who spoke to NBC News in Mooers, New York, said that’s not enough.

Mooers Fire Chief Todd Gumlaw said he recently helped rescue two Mexican women stuck in an icy swamp in the middle of the night. Gumlaw, along with Border Patrol, local police and EMS workers, was able to render first aid and get the women to a hospital to be treated for frostbite and mild hypothermia after they lost their shoes in the swamp, he said. “Preservation of human life is first and foremost with my department. We put [immigration status] to the back of our mind,” Gumlaw said.

The Mooers/Champlain region is a clump of small blue-collar residences and farms, where, according to locals, “everyone knows everyone” and properties can be several blocks apart, adding a sense of unease among some of the locals witnessing the mass migration in the region.

According to local first responders, southbound migrants often seek shelter in empty sheds and barns to shield themselves from the cold.

April Barcomb, a Mooers resident, said she has had migrants show up at her doorstep and is now saving up for security cameras.

“It’s not something I would usually do,” she said. “But it makes me think twice. And with the kids and the family, I gotta install cameras.”

While most locals who spoke to NBC News said they understood that most migrants crossing the region aren’t threats, neighbors are keeping their eyes open for unusual activity.

“People are scared,” a Champlain County resident said. “It’s the fear of the unknown. They’re [neighbors] worried about their safety, because they don’t know these people.”

Most of the migrants are Mexicans, who are frequently blocked from crossing the southern U.S. border and believe they will have an easier time if they fly to Canada and then cross into the U.S. from the north.

According to a CBP spokesperson, the Swanton Sector has been the site of more than 67% of all migrant crossings at the northern border across all eight sectors through February.

Unlike the southern border, where over 16,000 Border Patrol agents are responsible for staffing roughly 2,000 miles, about 2,000 border agents patrol the 5,000-mile border between the U.S. and Canada, which includes Alaska’s land boundaries, making it the longest international land border in the world.

New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu, a Republican, asked Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas in a letter Tuesday to step up enforcement along his state’s 51-mile border with Canada or allow his police forces more authority to do so.

“Over the last few months, the State of New Hampshire has attempted to assist the federal government in securing our northern border. These offers of assistance have been repeatedly rejected. The Biden administration has cut funding and hindered the state’s ability to assist in patrolling the northern border,” Sununu said.

A spokesperson for CBP said the additional agents who were just sent to the Swanton Sector will help deter migration.

Source: Border crossings from Canada into New York, Vermont and N.H. are up tenfold. Local cops want help.

The Roxham Road dilemma: What are Canada’s options in the border controversy?

Good in-depth overview:

Jose Moncada Urbina gets emotional when he hears people talking about shutting down Roxham Road, the famous rural route in Quebec that opens Canada’s door to asylum seekers.

Sitting in his cosy Mississauga home, the Nicaraguan man can’t help but reflect on his own journey, fleeing police violence and political persecution — and imagining how life would have been different for his family now if they had been denied that lifeline to safety.

“To think that other people won’t have the same opportunity and chance that my family and I had,” pauses the 47-year-old man, tearing up, “makes me upset.”

A spike in irregular migration and U.S. President Joe Biden’s upcoming visit to Ottawa have put both Roxham Road and the Safe Third Country Agreement, our bilateral border pact with the U.S., in the spotlight. Critics say neither are working, but what are the alternatives and will they just create new problems?

Although irregular migrants have been crossing for decades at Roxham Road, one of many entry points along the 8,890-kilometre porous land border with the United States, it gained prominence — and notoriety — with the surge of foot traffic spurred by the anti-immigration agenda when Donald Trump became U.S. president in 2017.

Ottawa’s asylum ban against these border crossers during the pandemic halted the flow, but the influx returned as soon as the ban was lifted in November 2021. Last year, the RCMP intercepted 39,540 people who crossed between Canadian ports of entry. In January alone, already some 5,000 entered Canada in the same manner.

Under the Safe Third Country Agreement, Canada and the U.S. each recognize the other country as a safe place to seek refuge. It dictates that migrants should pursue their claims in the country where they first arrived.

But the policy does not apply to the woods and dirt roads — and waterways — between official crossings, which some say is a “loophole” that makes the measure ineffective in pushing back the border and stopping migrants from seeking asylum in Canada.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau plans to raise the issue with Biden, and Canadian Immigration Minister Sean Fraser met this week with his White House counterpart.

While the Parti Québécois and the NDP have called for the agreement to be suspended, the Progressive Conservatives want to close Roxham Road as the Liberal government continues its “renegotiation” of the treaty with Washington that started in 2018.

“Canada remains firmly committed to upholding a fair and compassionate refugee protection system that respects the rights of asylum seekers and safeguards the integrity of our border,” Bahoz Dara Aziz, Fraser’s spokesperson, told the Star.

“Irregular migration demands a focus on both the root causes in a migrant’s country of origin, as well as with the promotion of regular pathways and managed borders. This requires co-operation on the international stage, including with the United States on the Safe Third Country Agreement.”

Suspending it or “closing” Roxham Road could result in migrants using other irregular crossings, some of which place them in danger and affect local communities incapable of responding to the influx, said Aziz.

While no quick changes to the border treaty are expected, critics say it’s a root cause of irregular migration that Canada is seeing and something has to be done about it.

Ottawa could expand the rules to the entire border, which, in effect, would plug the opening at Roxham Road; cancel the agreement to allow migrants to orderly seek asylum at official crossings; or tweak the terms to adjust how wide or narrow the door should be open for refugees.

Each option, experts say, could have unintended consequences.

Extending asylum ban across the entire border

Irregular migration on the northern border has been a “less salient” issue for Washington, which saw immigration arrests from the southern border with Mexico top 2 million last year, said Susan Fratzke, senior policy analyst at Migration Policy Institute, a bipartisan think tank in Washington.

That explains the cold reception from the U.S. in response to Canada’s request. In a recent interview with the CBC, American ambassador to Canada, David L. Cohen, said changes to the Safe Third Country Agreement would do little to solve irregular migration.

Even if the White House is willing to renegotiate, Fratzke said it’s hard to predict if the number of irregular migrants to Canada will go up or down with the closure of Roxham Road because desperate migrants would find more perilous and surreptitious ways to come.

But expanding the asylum ban to the entire border could have an immediate political impact.

“It’s something that has a lot of appeal in terms of the messaging of it. This would send a message to people who are trying to cross that it is something that will no longer be as easy or as possible,” said Fratzke.

“Policymakers on both side of the border still need to be prepared for other incentives and unintended consequences it creates as regards to how people will behave. It certainly won’t in itself solve the problem.”

For decades, successive Canadian governments had pushed the U.S. to sign the pact because the flow of migrants at the Canada-U.S. border disproportionately came from the south to north as it was generally easier to first enter the U.S.

According to a U.S. House of Representatives hearing, in the year prior to the treaty taking effect in 2004, about 14,000 asylum seekers came through the U.S. to Canada but only about 200 went the other way.

The September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001 gave Ottawa a chance to push for the treaty, with Washington conceding to Canada’s lobby in exchange for more border security co-operation.

Fratzke said such bilateral treaties are built on signatories sharing similar asylum processes and immigration policies such as visa requirements.

The Dublin Regulation, a similar regime in Europe, was first established in 1990 but she said it is still rife with challenges with its implementation because systems and capacities of the member states are not always in sync.

“One of the reasons why you would implement something like a safe third country agreement is because the odds and conditions under which someone is being considered for asylum in one country are quite similar to those in another country,” said Fratzke.

“It’s fair to say that even within the context of the EU, where there is co-operation and alignment between countries’ asylum and migration systems, implementing an agreement based on safe third country principles has been difficult.”

And that’s a problem between Canada and the U.S., according to critics, who argue that the U.S. asylum system is cruel and inhumane, which makes it unsafe for refugees.

For it to work, both the Canadian and American governments must also do their equal part in preventing migrants from entering the other country, said University of Toronto law professor Audrey Macklin, who has studied the border agreement closely.

It did not help, for example, when the City of New York began providing free bus tickets to migrants heading north to claim asylum in Canada.

Before the border treaty was signed, said Macklin, experts and advocates testifying before Parliament had warned them about the anticipated disorderly irregular entries into the country, and that the rules would not deter people from coming.

Although the number of asylum claimants in Canada dropped by 23 per cent to 19,748 a year after the agreement was implemented in 2004, the decline was short-lived as migrants tried other ways to skirt the rules.

There were ebbs and flows through the years in response to global refugee crises and domestic policy changes such as visa requirements against certain refugee-producing countries. But it peaked at 64,030 in 2019 during the Trump era before the pandemic hit.

“It’s not just about extending the agreement so Canada can push people over the border. It would be asking the United States to develop an entire apparatus on its side,” said Macklin.

“How do you make people stop wanting to flee the country they’re in to get to a place that they think is better or safer? That’s the question. It’s not even in the United States’ control?”

Macklin points out that Canada could build a wall and invest billions of dollars in surveillance technology and hire border patrols but it costs far less to process asylum claims made by irregular migrants.

Scrapping Safe Third Country Agreement

When the Nicaragua government started using armed forces to crack down on protests against tax hikes and pension reductions in April 2018, it was the last straw for Moncada Urbina, a computer engineer, and his wife, Norma, a lawyer.

The couple joined peaceful demonstrations to condemn police violence and supported the young protesters trapped in university campuses by delivering them food, water and medical supplies.

As authorities began detaining and jailing dissidents and sympathizers, Moncada Urbina decided to seek refuge in Canada, where he has close relatives.

However, only he and his eldest daughter, Katherine, now 21, had a visa to Canada and they didn’t have time to apply for a travel document for his wife, Norma, 48, and their two other children, Allison, 16, and Daniel, 13.

Instead, with their American visas (except for Norma, who went into hiding), Moncada Urbina flew to Boston with the three teenagers and arrived at Roxham Road three days later, in September 2018.

“My children couldn’t cross at a port of entry without a visa. Roxham Road was our only option,” said Moncada Urbina, whose family was granted asylum in 2021, with his wife arriving this past November.

“If you shut down Roxham Road, people would pick more dangerous ways or use traffickers to come. It’s human nature for survival,” he said.

And that would be the last thing that Loly Rico would like to see happening.

The executive director of Toronto’s FCJ Refugee Centre said Canada has a more fair asylum system that processes cases faster and allows claimants to work while waiting for their hearings. With Biden’s administration continuing Trump’s policies, Rico said the push for irregular migrants to Canada won’t end anytime soon.

Scrapping the Safe Third Country Agreement would mean a return to the way things were managed before 2004, when asylum seekers could cross at any of the 100-plus land ports of entry in eight provinces.

Currently 99 per cent of irregular migrants cross through Roxham Road and in June the federal government started transferring them to Ontario and other provinces, housing them in hotels.

As of this month, 7,848 asylum claimants have been transferred to Ontario, including 702 to Ottawa, 1,028 to Windsor, 4,618 to Niagara Falls, and 1,500 to Cornwall. Since February, 113 have been transferred to Halifax, 38 to Fredericton and 25 to Moncton.

Between 2017 and 2021, Ottawa issued payments totalling $551.6M to cover housing costs of asylum seekers who arrived in the U.S. through irregular means: $374 million to Quebec, $144.1 million to Toronto, $17.1M to Ottawa, $8 million to Manitoba, $6 million to B.C., $2.2 million to Peel Region and $220,000 to Hamilton.

Abolishing the border agreement “is not going to open a flood gate but would distribute migrants more evenly across Canada,” said Rico, who with her late husband, Francisco Rico Martinez, fled El Salvador in 1990 under a program to grant asylum to those trapped in their own country that was spiked by the Harper government in 2012.

Toronto refugee lawyer Raoul Boulakia agreed.

“There’s no reason for irregular migration when you don’t have a safe third country agreement,” said Boulakia, who has seen migrants choosing to remain in the U.S. underground even if they would have met an exemption from the rules for asylum at a Canadian port of entry.

“By not having people go through irregular points of entry, we’re allowed to have a lot more flexibility to distribute where people are entering. People do have a higher likelihood of staying at where they arrive.”

In February, the Biden administration introduced new rules to deny asylum to migrants who show up at the southern border without first seeking protection in a country they passed through, said Boulakia, and that could help check the downstream of northbound migration.

Tweaking the terms of the border treaty

The Safe Third Country Agreement provides exceptions for some groups to make an asylum claim at Canada’s official crossings

  • Those with family members in the country;
  • Unaccompanied minors;
  • Someone with a valid visa and permit to enter Canada
  • People who have been charged with or convicted of an offence that could subject them to death penalty in the U.S. or in a third country.

University of British Columbia law professor Efrat Arbel said the border agreement allows either country to make exceptions unilaterally.

“We have at our fingertips the ability to create a larger scope of protections through these exceptions that will result in greater efficiency, in saving resources, and a more principled, more progressive, more rights protecting approach to managing our borders,” said Arbel, who teaches refugee and constitutional law.

Ottawa could exempt migrants fleeing gender-based persecution or those from countries where Canada has a moratorium for removals due to wars or human rights violations, she said.

But at the end of the day, it’s a zero sum game that would simply divert migrants from one way to another to reach a safe destination as the displaced population worldwide continues to grow, doubling in the last decade to more than 100 million people.

Roxham Road is a byproduct of the global response to the refugee crisis, said Arbel.

“Through the deliberate acts of the Canadian government, there is no other point of entry. And combined with the fact that Canada is so geographically removed from the world conflict zone, it becomes impossible or practically impossible for migrants who are seeking protection to access Canada any other way,” she explained.

“These are measures that prohibit refugees and asylum seekers from meaningfully accessing rights protection based on how they enter or where they enter from, and not the reason why they are seeking entry.”

Macklin said the concerns over irregular migration do appear to be more about border control and possibly racism than the actual number of arrivals. She pointed to Canadians’ response to Ottawa’s special immigration measures that, in just over a year, welcomed 178,000 Ukrainians fleeing the Russian war.

“Nobody is hysterical about the numbers, it seems to me,” said Macklin. “It’s not about numbers, right? It’s about whiteness. Look, we have made it our choice and therefore, it’s OK.”

Last October, the Supreme Court of Canada heard the appeal by asylum seekers and rights groups to declare the Safe Third Country Agreement unconstitutional. A decision is pending.

“Oddly enough, if the federal government loses the Supreme Court appeal, it will actually solve the problem for them,” Macklin said.

Source: The Roxham Road dilemma: What are Canada’s options in the border controversy?

For Haitian migrants in limbo, calls to close Roxham Road clash with Canada’s friendly image

Of note:

Standing outside a migrant shelter near Mexico’s border with the U.S., Smyder Mesidor recounted a 10-country odyssey to get here. Driven out of Haiti by gang violence and Chile by a lack of work, the 30-year-old cook had been robbed by bandits and shaken down by customs officials as he walked across much of Latin America.

This road would end, he hoped, in either Florida or Quebec, both places where he has family.

So he reacted with a mix of bemusement and insouciance to word that Canadian politicians want to make it harder for migrants to enter by shutting down Roxham Road, the irregular border crossing south of Montreal.

Bemusement because such rhetoric seemed to clash with Canada’s immigrant-friendly image. Insouciance because, after what he’d been through, he was ready to brave the vagaries of the immigration system in a country that held out the hope of a better life.

“I don’t listen to that sort of talk,” Mr. Mesidor said. “Everyone speaks well of Canada.”

Among the thousands of Haitian migrants gathered here in Reynosa, a city of 700,000 across the Rio Bravo from Texas, there is persistent interest in reaching Canada, usually as a backup option if it proves too difficult to stay in the U.S. There is an even more persistent disregard for attempts by either country to stop people from coming.

Given the brutality and lack of economic opportunity back home, they don’t feel they have much choice but to push forward.

“We’re a little bit upset when we hear politicians say those things, because we don’t have a voice. We want to come and help them build their country,” said Kency Etienne, a 30-year-old teacher living in an encampment of several dozen tents on a concrete pad next to a Mexican government office. “But we don’t really think about it.”

Sitting nearby were Jean and Marie Petilme, who made the trek with their four children. Ms. Petilme is eight-months pregnant with a fifth. Hiking through Panama’s Darien jungle, Mr. Petilme said some migrants with them had their clothes stolen at gunpoint, others were swept away while fording a river and a few starved to death. Life hasn’t been much better in Mexico.

“We’ve been here for three months and we don’t get much to eat. We don’t have phones to fill out asylum applications,” said their daughter Miscalina, 12. “This is how we live.”

Mireille Joseph, 32, also travelled pregnant, including a five-day stretch on foot. She left her husband and two children behind in Haiti. Her hope is to get to safety and then work on having them join her. “I don’t really care at all what the politicians say. I want to come to either Canada or the U.S.,” she said.

The lifting of pandemic border restrictions, along with deteriorating economic and security conditions in Haiti and parts of Latin America, have driven a rise in northward migration this past year. In Haiti, armed gangs have tightened their control of the country, carrying out frequent kidnappings for ransom and blocking access to Port-au-Prince’s shipping terminals. The capital has suffered repeated shortages of food, fuel and medicine.

Under the Canada-United States Safe Third Country Agreement, migrants arriving in Canada from the U.S. are prohibited from making Canadian asylum claims, allowing for their swift deportation. But the rule only applies at official points of entry, leading asylum seekers to enter the country at irregular border crossings.The vast majority do so at Roxham Road near Plattsburgh, N.Y., because of its relative accessibility.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has vowed to renegotiate the Safe Third Country Agreement to apply to the entire border. The White House, however, has shown little interest in changing the status quo. Meanwhile, Texas Governor Greg Abbott has been busing migrants from his state to northern cities such as New York, where Mayor Eric Adams has sent many of them on to the Canadian border.

The influx has led Quebec Premier François Legault and federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre to ramp up pressure on Mr. Trudeau to stem the tide. “We as a country can close that border crossing. If we are a real country, we have borders,” Mr. Poilievre said last month.

In a letter to the Prime Minister, Mr. Legault said that the province’s social services could not handle any more asylum seekers. He also warned that the new arrivals, who predominantly speak Haitian Creole or Spanish, would contribute to “the decline of French in Montreal.”

The number of people who made refugee claims after crossing at Roxham Road last year – almost 40,000 – is high by the standards of Canada, used to being geographically insulated from migration. In Mexico, it seems modest, a fraction of the more than 200,000 who tried to cross into the U.S. in December alone.

In Reynosa, the shelters are full, leaving many to live on the streets, in parks and in vacant lots. Hot, dusty and perpetually sunny even in late winter, the city feels a world away from the snow-covered forest surrounding Roxham Road. At one intersection near a large encampment, a dozen small businesses have sprung up under tarps strung between trees, with everyone from barbers to fruit sellers providing services to the migrants.

Over a charcoal fire, 19-year-old Natalie Joseph helped prepare gorditas. She has spent much of her life on the move: She left Haiti at the age of 5, she said, with her family settling in Chile. Two years ago, worried about her prospects for finding work, she decided to hit the road with two friends. “You can get the basic necessities in Chile but we wanted something better,” she said.

Across the street, Maricianne Pierre said she had been waiting in Reynosa 2½ months. “I’d love to go to Canada. There are possibilities of school, social programs, work. I’m stuck here right now,” said Ms. Pierre, 40.

Hector Silva, a pastor who runs two shelters in the city, said he wasn’t sure what to tell people who were setting their sights north. He only hoped that the leaders of wealthy countries wouldn’t shut anyone out.

“We have a lot of people asking, ‘How can we do it – if we get the paper from the U.S., how do we get all the way to Canada?’ We don’t know,” he said as a U.S. Border Patrol chopper buzzed overhead. “They’re not criminals. Many people are running for their lives. Leaving the country looking for a better life is not against the law.”

At another shelter a few blocks away, Ricot Picot and his wife watched their two small children play. Mr. Picot, 42, who was a teacher in Haiti, said everyone would be better off if the people with power to decide immigration policy allowed them to complete their journey. “I pray for them,” he said. “We don’t have anything – no jobs, no support. We are not achieving anything staying here.”

Source: For Haitian migrants in limbo, calls to close Roxham Road clash with Canada’s friendly image

U.S. delivers reality check: New border deal with Canada not top priority

More coverage, deeper than most:

The premier of Quebec wants a new migration deal with the U.S. He wants it urgently. He wants the prime minister of Canada to negotiate it. The prime minister? He wants it too.

It’s become a pressing political priority and major federal-provincial irritant, with Canada eager to slow the flow of migrants entering on foot from the U.S. at unofficial points of entry, such as the contentious one at Roxham Road, south of Montreal.

There’s one small problem. The Americans get a say here.

For years, the U.S. has been conspicuously tight-lipped on the topic, and this week offered new — and rare — public insight into the American perspective.

Newsflash: A country dealing with millions of migrants per year is not in a major rush to reclaim Canada’s thousands.

U.S. Ambassador David Cohen told CBC News irregular crossings into Quebec are a symptom of a broad global migration challenge; and he’d rather address problems, not symptoms.

He wouldn’t even acknowledge the countries are talking about Canada’s desire to extend the 2002 Safe Third County Agreement to make it easier to expel migrants who cross between regular checkpoints.

Conversations with officials in both countries make clear no agreement is imminent. Whether President Joe Biden’s trip to Canada next month changes anything is an open question.

Two sources say that, to date, there have been constructive talks with U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, but the issue is far from settled.

Here’s an assessment in blunter language from an immigration expert in Washington, who also happens to know Canada very well.

“There is zero incentive for the United States to reopen Safe Third Country right now. Zero,” said Theresa Cardinal Brown, senior adviser on immigration at Washington’s Bipartisan Policy Centre, who once led Homeland Security operations at the U.S. embassy in Ottawa.

‘Our house is burning right now’

In its current form, the Safe Third Country Agreement says asylum seekers who enter the U.S. or Canada must make their claims in the first country they arrive in, but it only covers official points of entry.

Canada wants the agreement extended across the entire frontier, so it applies to migrants who use irregular entry points like the now-famous Roxham Road.

To Canadians wondering why it’s taken years for the U.S. to prioritize these negotiations, Brown said: “Because our house is burning right now on the other border.… Sorry.”

Just look at two parallel events that unfolded this week, in Canada and the U.S. They might as well have been happening in parallel universes.

Quebec Premier François Legault got lots of attention back home for a letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and an op-ed in the Globe and Mail.

He said Quebec received 39,000 irregular crossers last year, and could not handle more, saying it was straining housing, hospital services, and language training.

He requested money from Ottawa, said all future migrants should be sent to other provinces, and he demanded a new Safe Third Country deal with the U.S.

While the northern neighbour was asking the U.S. to accept more migrants, the Biden administration released plans to accept fewer, with a draft executive order.

The proposed rule would make it easier to instantly deport asylum claimants who try entering the U.S. without first scheduling an appointment in a mobile app, and first requesting asylum in Mexico.

That hardening attitude would come as no surprise to anyone paying attention to developments in the U.S.

Amid a historic worldwide surge in human displacement, migration has become perhaps the most explosive issue in American politics.

U.S. border agents could encounter more than three million migrants this year, higher even than the record-smashing total in 2022.

It’s causing strain in border communities like Yuma, Ariz., where agents met 300,000 migrants last year — that’s triple the local population.

Arizona official on northern complaints: ‘A joke to me’

The head of a regional hospital in Yuma said his staff have been caring for migrants and it’s cost the organization $20 million.

He said he laughs when he hears northern states complain about migration: Denver and New York, for example, have expressed a welcoming attitude then later declared they were overwhelmed.

“It’s pretty funny,”  said Dr. Bob Trenschel.

“They all seem to have a conniption when they get two buses of migrants.… The mayor of New York is squawking when he gets two busloads? That’s a joke to me.”

Now the mayor of New York is, in fact, paying for buses to carry migrants upstate, including to northern border communities where they enter Canada on foot.

After Canada averaged about 10,000 refugee claims per year since 2017, this northward surge has added tens of thousands of new border-crossers.

For comparison’s sake, the U.S. could expect more asylum claimants from Russia alone; if the recent rate holds, more than 60,000 Russians could seek asylum in the U.S. this year.

Other countries have even bigger challenges. Take Colombia: it’s currently home to nearly 10 per cent of the population of Venezuela, more than 2 million people who’ve fled.

An asylum-policy analyst in Washington said Canada’s migration issues don’t come up often in the policy conversation there.

“It’s certainly not something that is frequently raised,” said Susan Fratzke, a former State Department official and now senior analyst at the Migration Policy Institute.

“When it does come up, it’s always in reference to knowing that it’s a Canadian priority.”

She said it’s possible there could be a deal, probably as part of a broader migration agreement and probably not soon.

Watching Biden visit for development

One American analyst of Canada-U.S. relations is more optimistic.

He said Biden has a demonstrated desire to maintain good relations with Canada, as evidenced by his resolving irritants around electric-vehicle incentives and the Nexus trusted-traveller program.

For that reason, said Chris Sands, he wouldn’t be surprised if there’s some sort of development next month when Biden visits Canada.

“It would be a wonderful announceable at an event like that,” said Sands, director of the Canada Institute at Washington’s WIlson Center. “This is eminently doable if there’s will on both sides.”

On Thursday, Trudeau said he has spoken directly to Biden about this and suggested it will be on the agenda of Biden’s upcoming Canadian visit.

One person familiar with the binational discussions said there’s a shared desire to get a deal, but working out the details is more complicated.

Sands concurred.

He said goodwill isn’t the issue. The problem, he said, is working through budgeting and logistics, like sorting out who handles what responsibilities among the handful of law-enforcement and border agencies in both countries.

Potential deal: Something bigger

So what would it take to get a deal?

To get Americans’ interest, Brown said Canada would probably have to offer something unrelated, or related tangentially.

Maybe something like a major Canadian stabilization role in Haiti, she said, or a clampdown on the flow of Mexicans through Canada into Vermont, New Hampshire, and New York, which U.S. officials say is an emerging trend.

She suggested one surprising way the premier of Quebec might get Washington’s attention: accept more U.S. dairy imports, adding, “I’m only partially joking.”

The U.S. ambassador was clear in the CBC interview: his objective is a broader plan for international migration.

Canada has, in fact, signed a hemispheric agreement where it promised to take a lead role on some initiatives, one being resettling more French-speaking migrants, especially from Haiti.

Connecting the dots, Fratzke said any agreement on this issue will probably be bigger, not just a one-issue deal on Safe Third Country.

Two suggestions she offered: Canada could help build the capacity of other countries’ asylum systems, and could expand legal opportunities for economic migration.

The latter is what Brown wants for the U.S. too.

She said any solution must include opportunities for people to apply legally, so that they have hope the official pathways might work, for both humanitarian and economic visas.

The U.S., for example, is resettling only a few hundred refugees per year lately from Latin America: “That’s crazy,” Brown said.

And for all the millions of migrants it’s received, the percentage of people on U.S. soil born abroad is not actually that high, about average among industrialized countries.

She said the other part of a solution is more orderly enforcement. The asylum backlog is massive, and it takes an average of over four years to decide cases.

Brown said applications should be processed swiftly, decided near the border.

In the meantime, she said, when richer northern countries, like Canada, and the U.S., talk about restricting migration, they’re essentially pushing the burden south, to poorer countries, to places like Colombia, Central America and Mexico.

“That’s what we’re talking about,” she said.

Source: U.S. delivers reality check: New border deal with Canada not top priority

Clark: Let’s get politicians to tell us how they would close Roxham Road, not why, Yakabuski: Trudeau can no longer avoid tough choices on Roxham Road 

As always, the herd instinct at play in coverage of irregular arrivals and Roxham Road, given Premier Legault’s public pressure and Pierre Poilievre’s simplistic solution.

Two of the best are Clark, who calls for a needed but unlikely change, and Yakabuski who argues time for though choices:

Let’s hold all our politicians to one simple rule about Roxham Road: Don’t tell us what you want to do about it. Tell us how you would do it.

Quebec politicians have been calling for the unofficial crossing on the border between Quebec and New York state to be closed. And Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has called for the feds to do so within 30 days.

But as it turns out, there is no switch that opens and closes the border. So what is it they are actually proposing?

Mr. Poilievre said that all it takes is a simple decision, but he couldn’t say what the government should decide to do.

Of course, there are plenty of reasons why the government should do something. People want the border to be under control. They want migration to be safe and orderly.

And there is palpable frustration when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau essentially says he’s got nothing other than time to wait for U.S. President Joe Biden to solve the problem by changing a border agreement. And that’s essentially what Mr. Trudeau was saying Wednesday when he said that if Roxham Road was closed, asylum-seekers would just cross at other places. It’s probably true, but not a solution.

So how can it be done? Quebec Premier François Legault wants a deal with the U.S., too, but faster. Mr. Poilievre – and most politicians – don’t want to specify. Real proposals usally involve doing things the politicians don’t want to talk about. And many so far have been ineffective or ridiculous.

When People’s Party Leader Maxime Bernier was running for the leadership of the Conservative Party in 2017, he proposed sending the military. In 2018, two Conservative MPs proposed declaring the entire 8,891-kilometre border into an official border crossing, arguing that would trick the U.S. into taking back those who entered Canada at Roxham Road. That same year, then-Parti Québécois leader Jean-François Lisée briefly suggested a fence, or “a sign, a cedar grove, a police officer, whatever.”

Mr. Poilievre told reporters on Tuesday that it must be easy, because Mr. Trudeau shut down Roxham Road during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. But that didn’t happen with a snap of the fingers. When the two countries shut their borders, the U.S. agreed that Canada could direct border-crossers back. When the borders reopened, that arrangement ended. And here we are again.

That’s one thing to remember: Once they step foot into Canada, non-Americans can’t be sent back to the U.S. unless the U.S. agrees. The Safe Third Country Agreement allows for asylum seekers who enter Canada at official border posts to be turned back, but not those who cross in between. Canadian governments have tried for years to get the U.S. to change that, to no avail. On Wednesday, Mr. Trudeau said he’s working on it.

Of course, the simplest way to stop people from crossing at Roxham Road would be to scrap the Safe Third Country Agreement. Then asylum-seekers would just show up at official border crossings, as they did before 2004. And as Mr. Legault pointed out the other day, Mr. Trudeau tweeted in 2017 that Canada welcomes those fleeing persecution and war. It’s just that scrapping the agreement would almost certainly bring a lot more of them.

Some have proposed a fence. But obviously, people can go around it. There are lots of places to cross the border. It might disrupt the organized route to Roxham Road but police would probably have to intercept border-crossers at more places.

And there is Mr. Bernier’s idea: Send in the troops. Or police. But the real question is what they would do. Presumably they wouldn’t shoot everyone. Would all asylum-seekers be thrown in jail indefinitely?

Maybe there are better ideas. It would be nice to hear them. But Canadian politicians who don’t tell us how they would do it are avoiding the talk about costs, or the potential for border breaches to proliferate, or locking people up, or toughening the system.

Those are things debated by American politicians, who argue about harsher rules to discourage asylum-seekers from trying to enter the U.S. Mr. Biden is proposing refusing asylum claims from people who travelled through central America.

But now, Mr. Trudeau has essentially admitted he won’t do anything until Mr. Biden agrees to solve the problem for him.

And those such as Mr. Poilievre who call for Roxham Road to be closed are just mouthing meaningless words until they tell us how.

Source: Let’s get politicians to tell us how they would close Roxham Road, not why

François Legault has got his mojo back, or sort of.

After returning from Ottawa this month with a fraction of the billions of additional health care dollars he had been demanding for his province, the Quebec Premier was ridiculed by opposition parties and political pundits alike for being all bark and no bite.

Thanks to Ottawa’s recent transfer to cities in Ontario of asylum seekers arriving at the unofficial border crossing at Roxham Road in Quebec, Mr. Legault has been able to boast to the home crowd that he’s still got it. That his government’s constant efforts to force Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to do something about the “migrant crisis” facing Quebec is finally getting results. Thanks to his leaked letter to Mr. Trudeau and an op-ed in The Globe and Mail, Mr. Legault can tell Quebeckers that he has finally got the rest of Canada’s attention, if not its respect.

In truth, Ottawa last year began bussing some asylum seekers from Roxham Road to hotels in Cornwall, Niagara Falls, Ottawa and Windsor when it could no longer find rooms in Quebec. Since early 2023, those transfers have been occurring on a systematic basis. Mr. Legault wants Ottawa to continue to transfer migrants to other provinces, arguing correctly that Quebec has “taken on a completely disproportionate share” of asylum seekers entering Canada since Roxham Road was reopened in late 2021.

Mr. Legault also wants Mr. Trudeau to permanently “close the breach” in Canada’s border-security by prohibiting migrants from claiming asylum at Roxham Road, as it had temporarily done for an 18-month period during the pandemic. Federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is calling for Roxham’s closing within 30 days, also citing the pandemic-related closing as proof that Ottawa has the authority to act unilaterally to address the loophole in the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement that enabled more than 39,000 migrants to enter this country in 2022 at what has become our most official unofficial border crossing.

Immigration Minister Sean Fraser called Mr. Poilievre’s ideas “reckless” and lacking in “depth and understanding.” Amid a global migration crisis, Mr. Fraser added, Canada has a “responsibility to implement real, long-term solutions.”

Real, long-term solutions are not this government’s strong suit. It does excel at posturing, virtue signalling and dithering. But it has offered little evidence that it is taking concrete steps to address the increasing flow of asylum seekers at Roxham Road.

It is easy to understand why a government that prefers to project a compassionate image would be reluctant to act in any manner that might make it look heartless to some. Turning asylum seekers away at Roxham Road, in effect surrendering them to U.S. immigration authorities, would subject the Trudeau government to a backlash from within Liberal ranks.

Yet, it must be pointed out that this government has no problem turning away asylum seekers who arrive at official land border crossings. Are those who arrive at Roxham Road any more worthy of refugee status in Canada than the others?

What we do know is that almost half of “irregular border crossers” who arrived in Canada after 2016 saw their asylum claims rejected by the Immigration and Refugee Board or abandoned or withdrew their applications before a final IRB determination. And that the surge in irregular crossings at Roxham Road has left the IRB with a backlog of more than 74,000 cases that is growing rapidly each month. A refugee system that is meant to provide asylum to those fleeing persecution in their country of origin is being exploited by smugglers who prey on vulnerable people seeking to escape economic hardship in Latin America and Africa.

There are those in Liberal circles who argue that the “fundamental premise” at the heart of the STCA – specifically, the designation of the United States as a “safe” country for refugee claimants – no longer holds true. But as the Federal Court of Appeal found in 2021, it is up to the federal cabinet to undertake continual review to ensure that the United States continues to meet the criteria for safe country designation.

Not once since taking power in 2015 has the Trudeau government sought to cancel this designation – not even during the dark days of Donald Trump’s presidency, when some migrant children were separated from their parents.

The Supreme Court of Canada is expected to rule on the STCA this year. Even if it upholds the legality of the agreement, a new proposal by President Joe Biden to turn away all asylum seekers at the U.S. border who arrive from a third country via Mexico raises new questions about Canada’s continued designation of the U.S. as a safe country.

For Mr. Trudeau, there are no “real, long-term solutions” to the Roxham Road dilemma that do not include making tough, even excruciating, choices.

Source: Trudeau can no longer avoid tough choices on Roxham Road

Yakabuski: Déplacer le problème

Good analysis of the issues and the problem for the government, particularly should the Supreme Court rule against the STCA. Potential for a comparable impact to the 1985 Singh decision which required the government to provide due process to anyone who arrived on Canadian soil:

La ministre de l’Immigration du Québec, Christine Fréchette, s’est dite heureuse d’apprendre que les autorités fédérales avaient transféré vers l’Ontario la presque totalité des quelque 500 demandeurs d’asile arrivés par le chemin Roxham en fin de semaine dernière. Selon Mme Fréchette, voilà bien la preuve que le gouvernement du Québec « peut avoir des résultats » en exprimant sans cesse son mécontentement face à l’inaction d’Ottawa devant le flux grandissant de migrants irréguliers qui passent par le chemin Roxham depuis sa réouverture, en novembre 2021.

La ministre Fréchette a imploré le gouvernement fédéral de continuer d’envoyer ailleurs au Canada plus des trois quarts des demandeurs d’asile qui traversent ce poste frontalier non officiel pour ne laisser au Québec qu’une proportion de migrants équivalente à son poids démographique au sein de la fédération canadienne. « On espère que ça va se maintenir dans le temps, et que ça va être la nouvelle approche de gestion de la frontière », a-t-elle ajouté.

Toutefois, le bonheur des uns fait parfois le malheur des autres. Dans la région de Niagara, dans le sud de l’Ontario, l’arrivée des migrants en provenance du chemin Roxham suscite de vives inquiétudes chez les autorités municipales et les organismes de bienfaisance. Cette région est dotée d’un plus grand nombre de chambres d’hôtel que la moyenne en raison de sa vocation touristique, active surtout en été. Alors, il n’est pas surprenant qu’Ottawa l’ait choisie comme destination pour les migrants que le Québec dit ne plus avoir la capacité d’accueillir.

Or, alors que le gouvernement s’apprêterait à louer environ 2000 chambres d’hôtel afin d’y loger temporairement les migrants dans le sud de l’Ontario, certains intervenants expriment des réserves sur la nouvelle stratégie d’Ottawa. « Sans préavis, sans préparation, cela nous met dans une position très difficile, a affirmé cette semaine le maire de Niagara Falls, Jim Diodati, dans une entrevue au St. Catharines Standard. Comment pouvons-nous gérer une situation comme celle-ci quand nous avons déjà une crise du logement et une crise d’accessibilité au logement ? Cela va absolument exacerber un problème déjà existant. » À quelques semaines du début de la saison touristique printanière, il a dit prévoir « un gros problème » à l’horizon.

En agissant de la sorte dans ce dossier, le gouvernement du premier ministre Justin Trudeau démontre de nouveau ses piètres capacités en matière de gestion de crise. Il est pris entre sa base progressiste, qui souhaiterait ouvrir les frontières canadiennes à tous ceux « qui fuient la persécution, la terreur et la guerre » — comme M. Trudeau avait lui-même promis de le faire en 2017 dans un gazouillis dorénavant entré dans l’histoire —, et les contradictions de ses propres politiques d’immigration.

Les véritables réfugiés se voient damer le pion par des passeurs qui exploitent la vulnérabilité des migrants fuyant des conditions de vie difficiles en Amérique latine ou en Afrique pour leur retirer le peu d’argent dont ils disposent. On a beau vouloir être généreux envers ces personnes, l’intégrité de notre système d’immigration en prend pour son rhume et le Canada consolide sa réputation de passoire dont profite quiconque veut s’en prévaloir.

Ottawa se trouve dépourvu d’arguments face à un gouvernement américain qui n’a aucun intérêt à accéder à sa demande de « moderniser » l’Entente sur les tiers pays sûrs (ETPS). Les quelque 40 000 demandeurs d’asile qui sont arrivés au Canada par le chemin Roxham en 2022 ne constituent qu’une goutte d’eau dans l’océan migratoire américain. Même des politiciens démocrates comme le maire de New York, Eric Adams, ne voient pas pourquoi ils devraient se priver d’utiliser cette « faille » dans l’ETPS pour pallier quelque peu leur propre crise migratoire. Avouons-le, leur crise est infiniment plus sérieuse que la nôtre.

Alors, quoi faire ? Le transfert des demandeurs d’asile du chemin Roxham vers les autres provinces permet peut-être au gouvernement fédéral de réduire la pression sur le Québec, mais il risque de créer des tensions ailleurs au pays. Il est aussi possible que les passeurs voient dans la démarche fédérale un geste qui facilite leur travail. La capacité d’accueil du Québec atteint peut-être ses limites, mais le transfert par Ottawa des demandeurs d’asile vers l’Ontario crée plus de possibilités pour les profiteurs du système.

Espérons que le gouvernement Trudeau se dotera d’un plan B au cas où la Cour suprême invaliderait l’Entente sur les tiers pays sûrs. En 2020, la Cour fédérale avait trouvé que cette entente violait le droit à la vie, à la liberté et à la sécurité de la personne garanti par la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés. La Cour d’appel fédérale avait par la suite infirmé cette décision.

Toutefois, la notion selon laquelle les États-Unis ne constituent pas un pays « sûr » pour les demandeurs d’asile jouit de l’appui de beaucoup d’adeptes au Canada. En cas d’invalidation de l’ETPS, le Canada devrait accueillir tous les demandeurs d’asile qui arrivent en provenance des États-Unis, même ceux qui passent par un poste frontalier officiel. Cela créerait un méchant dilemme pour M. Trudeau, au point de peut-être même le forcer à répudier le fameux gazouillis dont il semble encore si fier.

Source: Déplacer le problème

ICYMI Globe Editorial: There’s a growing crisis at Roxham Road, and Ottawa doesn’t have a plan to fix it

Valid critique:

Is Canada in the midst of a border crisis? It’s hard to tell. Prior to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, however, there was no doubt about it.

In 2017, a dramatic surge in the number of people entering Canada illegally on an uncontrolled rural road running across the border between Quebec and New York State was the hot story of the summer.

Source: There’s a growing crisis at Roxham Road, and Ottawa doesn’t have a plan to fix it

No deal expected on ‘irregular’ border crossings when Justin Trudeau hosts Joe Biden

Of note:

The Liberal government does not expect to resolve concerns about the northward flow of refugees at unofficial Canada-U.S. border crossings when President Joe Biden visits Canada in March, says Immigration Minister Sean Fraser.

Biden’s visit to Ottawa, his first official trip to Canada since becoming president, will likely be in the first half of March, although no date has been set for the bilateral meeting, sources say.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Biden met recently in Mexico and at several international summits, as well as virtually since the Democratic president’s 2021 inauguration, and the two leaders set out a so-called “road map” in 2021 to guide bilateral actions in areas of co-operation.

But that road map of priorities does not expressly include any revision of a 2004 agreement called the Safe Third Country Agreement, even though the agreement itself requires continual review.

The agreement applies to refugee claimants entering at official border crossings and requires them to make asylum claims in the first “safe country” they arrive in. However, it doesn’t apply to those who sneak across or arrive at unofficial or “irregular” crossings, such as Roxham Road, near Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle at the Quebec-New York border.

Those asylum-seekers are permitted to remain in Canada and file refugee claims. As a result, during the Trump administration’s crackdown on illegal immigrants south of the border, a flood of refugee claimants poured into Canada via irregular crossings. Asylum-seekers also try to enter the U.S. irregularly from Canada.

Canada has been trying, unsuccessfully, to get the U.S. to expand the agreement to all border crossings, which would close the loophole and end the incentive to use irregular crossings.

Quebec Immigration Minister Christine Fréchette told La Presse she hoped the issue would be resolved during the Biden visit, calling it is “essential” to “correct” the agreement to stem the flow of irregular migrants into Quebec.

Fraser downplayed any prospect of a resolution soon.

“There’s not necessarily a giant point of disagreement that we need to overcome” in talks with the U.S., Fraser said.

He said only that there is an “opportunity to potentially advance” the discussions, adding there are “regulatory” and “legislative” issues to resolve, which he declined to identify.

“There’s a mutual expectation that there can be open and frank and confidential conversations between parties, but there are regulatory processes as well that will have to take some time to play out before changes can be made official,” Fraser said.

Meanwhile, migrant and refugee advocates have challenged the constitutionality of the Safe Third Country Agreement at the Supreme Court of Canada, saying it violates the constitutional rights of those seeking asylum by turning them back to the U.S., where critics say they face detention if not outright deportation to unsafe countries of origin. The high court has reserved judgment.

Source: No deal expected on ‘irregular’ border crossings when Justin Trudeau hosts Joe Biden

A family’s death trying to cross the U.S. border hasn’t deterred others — and more are taking the risk

Interesting flow in the other direction, as well as the details revealed in court documents:

Almost a year after a family from India froze to death near the international border in southern Manitoba, similar cases of people walking over to the U.S. are on the rise — but they involve people from a different country.

Since the tragic deaths of the Patel family in January 2022, monthly incidents on the other side of Manitoba’s international border have risen from eight to 30 in November, the most recent month for which complete data is available from U.S. Customs and Border Protection. That’s similar to the number seen before the COVID-19 pandemic.

The deaths of three-year-old Dharmik Patel; his 11-year-old sister, Vihangi Patel; and their parents, 37-year-old Vaishali Patel and 39-year-old Jagdish Patel put a spotlight on human smuggling operations involving Indian migrants using Canada as a stopover before illegally crossing south. 

But a growing proportion of people caught walking over the border are now coming from Mexico. In November, Mexicans made up almost three-quarters of incidents in the Grand Forks sector.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/IiFq5/4/

The number of Mexicans crossing into Canada to seek asylum has also spiked recently, as many flee their homes in search of jobs and safety. But statistics show most applicants from that country are rejected.

While flying to Canada just to walk back down into the U.S. is a long trip, some say it’s becoming more common for several reasons.

And in two recent cases involving Mexican migrants walking into North Dakota, authorities discovered the alleged smugglers before their trips were complete. Court documents revealed how those journeys mirrored the Patels’ — and the ways they turned out differently.

Fewer hurdles, more desperation

One advocate said the increase in Mexicans crossing the northern border of the U.S. may be partly due to increased security measures along the country’s southern boundary and a harsher detention system for those caught trying to cross in recent years.

“The Mexican border with the U.S. has been militarized for decades now…. I’m not surprised that people will try other ways to arrive [in] the U.S.,” said Maru Mora Villalpando, a community organizer and founder of La Resistencia, a grassroots organization that works with detained migrants in Washington state.

Those changes made it harder to cross certain parts of the southern border, she said, forcing people to instead travel through dangerous parts of the desert — or try their luck up north.

The increase in northern crossings may also be partly due to Canada lifting a visa requirementfor Mexican travellers in 2016, said Kathryn Siemer, acting patrol agent in charge of Pembina Border Patrol station in North Dakota.

“I think we’re still seeing some of the repercussions of that, where it’s easier to fly into Canada and then cross into the United States as opposed to trying to come north through the Mexico border,” Siemer said.

Matthew Dearth, a Grand Forks lawyer representing an alleged smuggler charged in connection with one of the most recent cases in North Dakota, said more people are getting desperate enough — as the U.S. government fails to act on immigration reform — to risk potentially severe criminal penalties for their vision of a better future.

“They’re going to do whatever they can do to try to get into the United States. Because they have family members here. They have opportunity here. It’s safe,” said Dearth, who’s originally from Winnipeg.

A call for help

Dearth’s client is charged in connection with a suspected smuggling trip that met its end after the man’s van got stuck in the snow in Cavalier, a North Dakota city just south of the international border, on the way to pick up a group of migrants, a U.S. court document filed in mid-November alleged.

Dearth’s client and the other man charged in the case then walked about a half hour in the early morning of Nov. 17, 2022, before they met up with the migrants, according to the affidavit filed on Nov. 18, 2022, in the United States District Court in North Dakota.

Much like when the Patel family tried to cross the border, freezing temperatures, snow and wind made it a difficult journey.

There were also two young children — in this case aged four and nine — among the group, according to the affidavit written by a Border Patrol officer involved in the case. But this time, someone decided to call for help.

In this remote part of the country, that’s not always possible, said Border Patrol agent Siemer. Cell phone towers are few and far between, and tall snow drifts can make it easy to get lost in the dark.

“If you’re out here for more than 20 minutes, and whoever you thought might be coming to pick you up isn’t there because they got stuck or didn’t show up, you are on your own and it’s very dangerous,” she said.

Following that call for help in November, a deputy arrived and found nine people dressed in heavy winter clothing. They asked officers to bring them to a hotel — which raised suspicions around smuggling. The group later admitted they were in the country illegally, the affidavit alleged.

None of the allegations against Dearth’s client, who is a U.S. citizen, or his co-accused have been proven in court. The Georgia man pleaded not guilty to conspiring to smuggle people across the border, which carries a maximum penalty of a decade in prison.

Financial woes

Dearth said there’s a general misconception that border smuggling is only carried out by organized crime groups looking to rake in cash.

Sometimes it’s done by people who made the crossing themselves and are trying to help friends or family make a better life. Other times, people are “down on their luck” and need the money, he said.

The affidavit claims Dearth’s client told authorities he worked in construction with his co-accused, and that’s how he first got the offer to make extra money smuggling people into the U.S. 

While he first turned it down, the affidavit alleged he changed his mind after a divorce and financial struggles.

The affidavit also claims the man said he and his co-accused smuggled four other groups over the same border in September and October and dropped them off at pre-arranged spots along the interstate highway. 

He said he typically made between $500 and $1,000 per person, and his co-accused was the one who made the arrangements, the affidavit alleged.

A cemetery meeting

In a case last month, two smugglers pleaded guilty after one of them hid in a ditch when Border Patrol agents pulled over their pickup truck full of migrants around a cemetery near Neche, another North Dakota community by the international border.

The Park Center Cemetery is surrounded by pine trees and visible for miles when the weather co-operates. It had recently been the site of other “illegal entry activity” when agents saw a truck approach the U.S. side of the border under cover of darkness early on Dec. 2, 2022, according to an affidavit filed Dec. 5, 2022, in the United States District Court in North Dakota.

The desolate site is miles away from any farms or houses on the U.S. side, and nearby creeks — some frozen, some still running — wind through farmers’ fields.

Agents said in the affidavit on that night, they watched another vehicle pull up on the Canadian side, and a group got out and walked toward the cemetery, then got into the truck.

When agents pulled the truck over, one of the people inside — Juan Pablo Huerta-Ramos, later charged as a smuggler — got out and ran. He was later found hiding in a nearby ditch filled with grass and snow, the affidavit said.

All nine people in the truck, including smugglers Huerta-Ramos and Martin Loyo-Estrada, later admitted to being Mexican citizens illegally in the U.S.

A broken leg, a family in Winnipeg

In an interview after his arrest, Loyo-Estrada said he’d lived in California for about nine years and had been a landscaper until a broken leg left him unable to work. A friend from Mexico then connected him with someone who offered him work smuggling people over the border.

Loyo-Estrada said that unknown person called him several times to give him directions during his trip from Los Angeles to Cavalier, which also included using Uber rides and hotels as he made stops in Minneapolis and Grand Forks. 

The few details investigators revealed about the Patels’ journey after arriving in Canada include similar elements — staying in several hotels and using a ride-sharing service to get around the Greater Toronto Area.

Loyo-Estrada said he was supposed to get paid $1,000 for each group of migrants he worked with and be reimbursed for his travel costs.

Huerta-Ramos told agents he was also living in California and had travelled from Los Angeles to North Dakota to smuggle over his wife and daughter, who were supposed to be in Winnipeg. He said his wife gave him a phone number for someone named Antonio, who he agreed to pay $2,000 to help get his family across.

He said he met two of Antonio’s associates in front of the Fargo airport and went with them to a Mexican restaurant, where he got a call from Antonio telling him his family was already in California — and asking if he’d help smuggle a different group across the border anyway. 

Both men pleaded guilty to conspiring to transport illegal aliens and re-entering the U.S. without permission after previously being deported.

A year later, questions remain

While a year has passed since the deaths of Dharmik, Vihangi, Vaishali and Jagdish Patel, many details about their journey are still unknown.

Investigators haven’t publicly released details about who they believe sheltered and shuttled the Patels around the Greater Toronto Area before they travelled to Manitoba to cross the border.

And it’s still unclear, even to police, what happened after Jan. 15, 2022, when the family left their Toronto-area hotel, up until their bodies were discovered four days later.

It is clear, however, that they were sent on a dangerous journey — and it’s the kind of story migrant advocate Mora Villalpando hears too often, as many who can’t wait for changes in the U.S. immigration system are forced to take risks to get there.

“What it tells us is that the U.S. is just increasing the danger for people that are trying to come,” she said.

“When you intentionally for decades created a funnel to a dangerous path through the desert, it means you don’t care about human beings.”

Source: A family’s death trying to cross the U.S. border hasn’t deterred others — and more are taking the risk

Safe Third Country Agreement is ‘working’ despite surge in irregular crossings: minister

Of note (not sure its perceived as working by the public):

Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino says the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) is “working,” despite the massive increase in migrants using unofficial border crossings last year compared to previous years.

Mendicino told CTV’s Question Period host Vassy Kapelos, in an interview airing Sunday, Canadian officials and their American counterparts continue to work together to modernize the agreement. Still, he insists the system is functioning.

“To be clear, that agreement remains in place and it is working,” he said. “The RCMP are doing the job of intercepting those who are coming into the country, which obviously underscores the integrity of our borders and the investments, which are backstopped by the federal government.”

The STCA was first signed 20 years ago, and there have been talks of modernizing it since 2018, with some changes made in 2019. Under the STCA, people seeking refugee status in either Canada or the U.S. must make their claim in the first country they enter.

The loophole that the agreement applies only to official land border crossings means asylum seekers who manage to enter a country via an unofficial crossing — such as Roxham Road along the Quebec-New York border — are not returned.

According to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, the number of RCMP interceptions and asylum claims at unofficial border crossings between Canada and the U.S. hit a six-year high in 2022. There was a drastic drop in the numbers as of spring 2020 and throughout 2021 because of the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on the border.

“I’m cautiously optimistic that we’re going to be able to land it,” he said. “In the meantime, we’ll continue to make historic investments and work with provincial and territorial partners, so that asylum seekers who have a basis on which to make those claims in Canada are able to do so, but do so in a safe and orderly way.”

“It’s important that we recognize that we have an immigration system that works, and that fosters safe and orderly flow both when it comes to asylum seekers, as well as economic immigrants,” he also said.

Conservative Leader Poilievre Poilievre said this week that the Liberal government should renegotiate the agreement “in order to close Roxham Road,” adding he understands why people try to use it, because the Canadian immigration system is “now so slow and so broken.” He blamed the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada application backlog, and said the prime minister should “renegotiate the deal with the Americans, and speed up the processing of immigration generally.”

Source: Safe Third Country Agreement is ‘working’ despite surge in irregular crossings: minister