Safe Third Agreement Canada

Concerns have been raised about the lack of security legislation for refugee protection in the United States. This security problem and argument give refugees legitimate reasons to turn around in Canada to lead a better life. On December 29, 2005, a group of refugee and human rights organizations (in Canada and the United States) launched legal action against the U.S. claim as a safe third country for asylum seekers. This action was supported by prominent figures such as Justice Michael Phelan of the Federal Court of Canada on November 29, 2007 and many others. The agreement represented a long-standing desire of the Canadian government to limit the number of people applying for refugees, as potential applicants are much more likely to travel to Canada by land via the United States to assert a right than in the opposite direction. Although the United States initially resisted Canada`s proposal because it meant that it had to deal with more complainants, after 2001, the Bush administration accepted this request in exchange for Canada`s cooperation with other U.S. security priorities. Canadian refugee advocates have strongly opposed the agreement and say the United States is not always a safe country for people fleeing persecution.

If the government wins its appeal, which will probably be heard in late February or early March, the border agreement will almost certainly remain intact. If the government loses its appeal, it is likely that the agreement will be permanently abolished, unless the government decides to challenge the loss in the Supreme Court. In order to put an end to this „forum shopping“ under the STCA and its Canadian legislation that is able to make it possible, asylum seekers generally must apply for asylum in the first „safe“ country in which they enter. Under Section 159.3 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, the United States is considered a „safe“ country under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). [5] The agreement allowing any country to reject asylum seekers attempting to apply for refugees at official border crossings was declared unconstitutional by the Federal Court of Justice in July. The government said the abolition of the agreement would result in an „inflow“ of asylum seekers at the border, making it more difficult for several levels of government to maintain the existing refugee system, including the provision of housing and other social services. Canada „continues to actively engage“ with Washington in the refugee pact and ensures that the agreement reflects Canada`s commitment to its international obligations „while continuing to work on how we manage our shared border,“ he added. So far, the United States is the only third-country country classified as a safe third country. The Canadian Refugee Council strongly opposes this agreement because the United States is not a safe country for all refugees.

The CCR also denounces the objective and impact of reducing the number of refugees who can seek refuge in Canada. Under the Third Country Nationals Security Agreement, which came into force in 2004, Canada and the United States recognize each other as safe places for potential refugees to seek refuge. McDonald suspended his decision for six months to give Parliament a chance to respond. The agreement is maintained during this period. The agreement means that Canada must reject anyone arriving at an official U.S. place of entry to prevent them from applying for refugee status in Canada, as the United States is considered a „safe country“ to make such an application.