In a decision hailed as a win for refugee rights, a federal judge in Canada ruled Tuesday that the “Safe Third Country Agreement” between Canada and the U.S. is invalid because it fails to guarantee migrants’ rights to liberty and security, in effect an admission that the U.S. is not a safe country for those seeking refugee protection.
Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East called the ruling “a victory for asylum seekers.”
The bilateral agreement known as STCA, which went into effect in 2004, requires migrants presenting themselves at official Canada-U.S. border points of entry to be returned to the country where they first arrived to present their claims under the assumption that claimants “could have found effective protection” in either of the two countries.
The Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR), Amnesty International, and the Canadian Council of Churches brought forth the challenge along with refugee claimants including Nedira Mustefa, an Ethiopian national.
Mustefa tried in 2017 to enter Canada from the U.S. but was returned to American soil where she was immediately imprisoned and held in solitary confinement for one week—a time she told the court was “a terrifying, isolating, and psychologically traumatic experience.” She was then detained with others who had criminal convictions and “did not know when [she] would be released, if at all.”
Dorota Blumczynska
In a statement welcoming the ruling, CCR president Dorota Blumczynska said:
“The court could hardly fail to be moved by the testimonies of the appalling experiences of people in the U.S. immigration detention system, after Canada closed the doors on them. Their experiences show us—and convinced the court — that the U.S. cannot be considered a safe country for refugees.”
A couple of days ago I reportedon the Asylum process which is part of the Refugee Act of 1980. The difference from the US Refugee Admissions Program is that these wannabe ‘refugees’ are already in the US usually illegally and they claim they will be persecuted if returned home.
It is a huge backlog of cases that is concerning the Trump Administration and is why they say that a 30,000 cap on the refugees the UN/US State Department bring in to the country is all we can handle. I assume they are expecting more than the 20,000-30,000 asylum seekers who have been approved each year for the last ten will grow with their stepped- up processing.
I have no time to snip this Fact Sheet from the American Immigration Council on ‘Asylum in the US,’ but you will find it answers many of your questions.
Although AIC is a non-profit legal advocacy group promoting more immigration, the facts seem pretty straight forward.
Take note of the definition of ‘refugee’ and see that they still pretty much stick to the original definition that doesn’t include a lot of expansions.
Oh, and for those who have asked, asylum seekers, who often wait years for an asylum hearing (while free in America), are permitted to work after a certain time.
What I didn’t mention the other day was where most of the asylum seekers who are approved come from.
Total Asylum Grants by Country of Nationality, Fiscal Year 2016
From the American Immigration Council Fact Sheet
I’m urging all of you to start paying attention to the tens of thousands of ‘refugees’ being approved as your new neighbors after they got in to the US illegally, or came in on an approved visa and then asked for asylum.
The Boston Bombers got in through the asylum system.
Faithful readers of RRW know that European countries are having an awful time with illegal aliens arriving and asking for asylum—some countries have it worse than others, little Malta*, Italy, Sweden and Greece come to mind. But, asylum seekers are camping on the streets of Berlin and in churches in Vienna. Many are moving from country to country looking for the best deal.
So, does the new “law” mean that Malta must release its detained “asylum seekers?”
I know that many readers here are more interested in what is happening in the US with refugees and asylum seekers, but it’s important to know that millions of migrants are on the move around the world looking to escape persecution (mostly by Muslim countries) and others, the larger numbers, are economic migrants claiming persecution which is a huge problem because there is a limit to how many poor people can be absorbed before a government collapses. We should be looking to Europe now as the “canary in a coal mine” and take a lesson—LOL! in what NOT to do.
One country cannot make stricter regulations than another country!
On Wednesday 12 June the European Parliament amended EU legislation on asylum after long and complex negotiations. The changes that have been brought are in UNHCR’s view a welcome step towards the establishment of a Common European Asylum System.
The ultimate objective of these changes is a uniform asylum system which is valid across the European Union. This would ensure that, regardless of the Member State in which an application for international protection is lodged, the application should receive the same treatment.
Detention is discouraged, asylum seekers should be let go until their cases are adjudicated.
….further regulation of the use of detention. Systematic detention of asylum-seekers will no longer be possible. Important new guarantees include the requirement that any detention be necessary and proportionate; that detention is an exceptional measure and can only be justified for a legitimate purpose on defined grounds.
If a case is not processed within 6 months, the asylum seeker is allowed to work.
Last, is earlier access to the labour market. In cases where claims for international protection are not decided within six months, asylum-seekers will have access to the labour market not later than nine months following the date when their applications were lodged.
UNHCR believes that the legislation agreed has potential to contribute to more harmonized asylum systems in the European Union. The agreed legislative package should further improve protection standards and practices across the 27 Member States – soon to be 28 – with Croatia’s imminent accession.
In the US many asylum seekers who arrive on our borders and in our airports are simply allowed to go where they wish and are expected to show up at their appointed court date. Some simply disappear. One infamous example of an asylum seeker who never showed up in court was Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the first World Trade Center bombing.
* Have a look at our many posts on Malta, the tiny island nation where the US State Department (cheered on by the Jesuits) transforms Malta’s migrant arrivals, mostly launched from Libya, into “refugees” destined for your American towns and cities.
