Canadian Money Forum banner

Federal court rules on Safe Third Country agreement as unconstitutional

2K views 36 replies 7 participants last post by  MrMatt 
#1 ·

Watching CTV news this morning, not one word was said about this ruling. Instead, at least half of their time was spent on issues happening in the USA.

Now it is up to our federal government to decide whether to appeal that ruling or suspend the STCA agreement.
 
#2 ·

Watching CTV news this morning, not one word was said about this ruling. Instead, at least half of their time was spent on issues happening in the USA.

Now it is up to our federal government to decide whether to appeal that ruling or suspend the STCA agreement.
Putting criminals in prison is a human rights violation?

That's nuts. Really, can anyone explain the logic of how it is a human rights violation to put a criminal in prison?
 
#3 ·
I don't think you really understand the issue MrMatt.

First, it is not up to you or me to decide who is a criminal, that is a court's decision to make. Someone fleeing persecution in their home country is not a criminal.

The Safe Third Country agreement is based on the premise that someone coming into Canada to seek asylum, did not have to come in because they were coming from a SAFE third country. If being sent back to the USA results in imprisonment, that is not a SAFE country. In a 'Safe Country' the asylum seeker would be given the same chance to make their case as they would here in Canada. That is not what is happening in the USA since Trump came into office.

If we reject the STCA in regards to the USA, there will be no need for any asylum seeker to cross our border illegally. They can enter through any normal border crossing and claim asylum then and there. They will then go through the process we have in place to examine their claim and will be accepted or rejected according to the merits of their situation.
 
#4 ·
I don't think you really understand the issue MrMatt.

First, it is not up to you or me to decide who is a criminal, that is a court's decision to make. Someone fleeing persecution in their home country is not a criminal.

The Safe Third Country agreement is based on the premise that someone coming into Canada to seek asylum, did not have to come in because they were coming from a SAFE third country. If being sent back to the USA results in imprisonment, that is not a SAFE country. In a 'Safe Country' the asylum seeker would be given the same chance to make their case as they would here in Canada. That is not what is happening in the USA since Trump came into office.

If we reject the STCA in regards to the USA, there will be no need for any asylum seeker to cross our border illegally. They can enter through any normal border crossing and claim asylum then and there. They will then go through the process we have in place to examine their claim and will be accepted or rejected according to the merits of their situation.
I understand the issue, I just see it differently and disagree with you.

Firstly, there are effectively no asylum claims from US citizens to Canada.
If they're entering Canada from the US, they are not fleeing their home country, they're fleeing the US.

I fail to see how being imprisoned in accordance with US law makes the country "unsafe".
 
#5 ·
I understand the issue, I just see it differently and disagree with you.

Firstly, there are effectively no asylum claims from US citizens to Canada.
If they're entering Canada from the US, they are not fleeing their home country, they're fleeing the US.

I fail to see how being imprisoned in accordance with US law makes the country "unsafe".
Either you are being deliberately obtuse or really do not understand the issues.
 
#16 ·
My point is that some countries persecute people with 'the law'. Those people might seek asylum while also being criminals in their own country. You are saying we should not take asylum seekers who are breaking laws in their country. Frankly, this doesn't track for me.
 
#21 ·
The court's position is that the US is not a safe country to send asylum claimants to. I only took issue with the fact that you're saying that these are criminals, and criminals should not be eligible to claim asylum, which doesn't make sense, as many legitimate asylum seekers are seeking asylum from places where they are breaking the law.
 
#23 ·
If gay people in Saudi Arabia are not criminals, why are they fearing the fact that that country treats homosexuality as a crime punishable by death? The whole point of asylum is that some countries believe that the law in other countries is unjust and persecution. So it is incorrect to argue that anyone considered to be a criminal in some jurisdiction to be inherently unworthy of asylum on that basis. Supposed criminality cannot be used as the sole basis to deny asylum applications.
 
#24 ·
I agree, however if you're in the US, they're not persecuting you for being gay.
The imminent threat to your well being that existed in Saudi Arabia is gone.
Now that you're in a safe country, you should apply for refugee status.

At this point, if you try to enter Canada, you're no longer fleeing persecution for being gay, that flight ended in the US.

If you were being persecuted by the US government, then seeking refugee status in Canada would be appropriate. But that's not what's happening. People are simply venue shopping.
 
#25 ·
You're arguing a specific situation. My point is that criminality absent context can't be used as a basis for denying asylum. What about draft dodgers, if you narrowly need a situation that was considered criminal in the US but for which Canada previously provided asylum?

Perhaps what the court is considering is that the US cannot be considered safe, whether they would bundle that person back to Saudi or would detain them in a ICE gulag.
 
#26 ·
You're arguing specific cases.

US Draft dodgers should not be permitted asylum.
If it was likely that they'd be sent to Saudi Arabia, and they were likely to face immediate harm, asylum should be considered.

There is nothing wrong with detaining people who do not have authorization to enter the country. Or who have illegally entered the country.
I think it's a problem that we allow most people into the country without proper screening, and that we lack sufficient proper pre-immigration holding facilities.
 
#29 ·
Regardless of what YOU THINK MrMatt, the judge has ruled. You may have more knowledge of the issues than the judge researched before making her ruling, but somehow I doubt that. So I will go with the judges decision over your opinion.

You should be happy with that ruling anyway since it means that there is no reason for them to cross our border illegally, they can enter legally at a normal border crossing and claim asylum when they do. Isn't that what you want?
 
#32 ·
Here's an article that explains the judge's decision a little more:

Basically, the judge found that people who are turned back from the Canadian border as asylum seekers are imprisoned by US authorities as soon as that happens.
 
#33 ·
Did you read the article?
Lets take their example Nedira Jemal Mustefa.

She was safe in the US, chose not to apply for refugee status, instead she remained in the country illegally.
When caught violating US law, the justice system took over.

It doesn't seem she was denied refugee status in the US, apparently she may have never even applied for it.


I have a question, and again, since I don't understand your position.
Lets look at this situation.
1. Someone is in Canada.
2. Someone commits a crime in Canada.
3. We catch them and put them in prison.

What's wrong with that?
Like seriously, isn't that how it should work?

If this person, YOUR example, not mine, didn't commit a crime in the US, the US wouldn't be jailing her.
 
#34 ·
I didn't really have a position, I was just trying to clarify the situation as it seemed you and Andrew were talking at cross-purposes.

However, here is the official judgement from the Canadian court:

In it, they say that this particular person believed she was ineligible to apply for asylum in the US, hence she applied in Canada. I googled the rules for applying for asylum in the US and it does say you need to do it within a year of arriving in the country. I feel like her situation is very complicated since she was brought to the US at age 11. It was obviously not her fault that she was in the country illegally, at least before age 18. She was 19 (based on the years stated, it may have been before or after her birthday, I don't know) when she decided to apply for asylum in Canada. I feel like this was a responsible thing to do, given she knew she was in the US illegally, she did not think she was eligible to apply for asylum in the US, and she was afraid to return to Ethiopia. She was also still very young. When she was turned back at the Canadian border, she was then placed into solitary confinement for a week and spent a month in prison altogether. If you were her, would you feel this was fair/just? I would not.

Now, if you read the "Detention" section of the above-linked PDF, it says that most asylum seekers returned to the US are detained (imprisoned). Even people with lawful US status can be detained and can have their visas revoked. It goes on to describe very harsh conditions in the detention centres.

So all in all, I agree with the decision.

To me, seeking asylum is not something that should be prison-worthy. I am against illegal immigration, but I think if someone is seeking asylum, they should be given the chance to make their case, and once a decision has been reached, they should either be granted residency as a refugee or deported. I do not think holding them in solitary confinement is appropriate.
 
#35 ·
I think people who do not have a lawful status should not be permitted entry.
This is one of the failings of Canadian Border Security policy.
To me it actually seems insane that we'd let people into our country, before we let determine their admisibility.

Second in her specific case, maybe it should be an exception. I don't think it is fair that the asylum clock is ticking on a minor who may not be able to make the claim. Since she was actually unable to make such a claim there are unique circumstances at play.
So perhaps in her specific case the US policy is not fair.

However for adults, who were capable of applying under the US law, the situation is much simpler.
 
#36 ·
MrMatt, you are entitled to an opinion. However, I believe the majority of Canadians and certainly the judge who made this decision, do not agree with you. Returning someone to the USA who wants to claim asylum in Canada when we know they will be imprisoned in the USA, is not what we want to do.

As I tried to explain to you once already, you should be happy with this decision as it makes what you want to happen, happen. There is no longer any reason for someone to enter Canada illegally from the USA as they can now enter at a normal border crossing LEGALLY and claim asylum. It was the STPA that stopped them from doing that!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top