Canadian court to rule on US treatment of asylum seekers

9-10ths_Penguin · Nov 4, 2019

A Canadian federal court is hearing arguments that could overturn the Safe Third Country agreement between Canada and the United States:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/safe-third-country-1.5346557

Short version: there are agreements between many developed countries - including Canada and the US - that effectively imply that refugee claimants can't "shop around" their claim. Once they arrive in one of the countries that's party to the agreement, that's where they have to make their claim for asylum. If an asylum seeker arrives in the US via Canada, the US returns them to Canada to have their refugee claim heard... and vice versa.

The case being heard this week deals with a Ugandan refugee claimant who is arguing that American treatment of refugee claimants is so bad that returning her to the US would constitute a breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This case has the potential to nullify the Safe Third Country agreement between Canada and the US. The 40,000 refugee claimants a year Canada receives from the US would then be entitled to stay in Canada (provided their claim is upheld), and the US would no longer be able to return refugee claimants who arrived via Canada back to Canada.

It would also be, effectively, a condemnation of the American system of concentration camps by the Canadian courts.

Shamefully, the Canadian government is trying to get the matter dismissed.

The hearing is scheduled to hear arguments and witnesses until Friday, and a judgement should come down some time after that.

Thoughts?

sun rise · Nov 4, 2019

Canada should go ahead and do that. The current regime in power in Washington don't care about agreements with other nations (among many other dark things). Other nations should not allow the US regime to get away with dark deeds unchallenged.

lewisnotmiller · Nov 4, 2019

Do the same with Australia while you're at it. Our behaviour in this area is disgusting.

Shad · Nov 5, 2019

9-10ths_Penguin said:
A Canadian federal court is hearing arguments that could overturn the Safe Third Country agreement between Canada and the United States:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/safe-third-country-1.5346557

Short version: there are agreements between many developed countries - including Canada and the US - that effectively imply that refugee claimants can't "shop around" their claim. Once they arrive in one of the countries that's party to the agreement, that's where they have to make their claim for asylum. If an asylum seeker arrives in the US via Canada, the US returns them to Canada to have their refugee claim heard... and vice versa.

The case being heard this week deals with a Ugandan refugee claimant who is arguing that American treatment of refugee claimants is so bad that returning her to the US would constitute a breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This case has the potential to nullify the Safe Third Country agreement between Canada and the US. The 40,000 refugee claimants a year Canada receives from the US would then be entitled to stay in Canada (provided their claim is upheld), and the US would no longer be able to return refugee claimants who arrived via Canada back to Canada.

It would also be, effectively, a condemnation of the American system of concentration camps by the Canadian courts.

Shamefully, the Canadian government is trying to get the matter dismissed.

The hearing is scheduled to hear arguments and witnesses until Friday, and a judgement should come down some time after that.

Thoughts?

Dumb idea only used to virtue signal. Article 4 has exceptions. Article 6 enables Canada to review any application by it's own accord. All this move does is handicap immigration by 1) Forcing interviews and reviews which may be unnecessary as such information exists on US databases. 2) Burden the systems as per point 1. It also increases wasted taxpayer money as people are released pending reviews as any claim is treated as fact for supporting programs.

Eg a criminal claims refugee status. Now Canada must review this person instead of using a database that may already have records of their criminality.

9-10ths_Penguin · Nov 5, 2019

Shad said:
Dumb idea only used to virtue signal.

What are you on about?

9-10ths_Penguin · Nov 5, 2019

lewisnotmiller said:
Do the same with Australia while you're at it. Our behaviour in this area is disgusting.

I agree. I'm not as in tune with the Australian situation as I am with the US, but what I have seen is very troubling.

... though in practical terms, it's not like there are a lot of refugees who arrive in Australia and then make their way to Canada to make a refugee claim (or vice versa).

9-10ths_Penguin · Nov 5, 2019

sun rise said:
Canada should go ahead and do that. The current regime in power in Washington don't care about agreements with other nations (among many other dark things). Other nations should not allow the US regime to get away with dark deeds unchallenged.

AFAIK, the US is honouring this agreement: they are accepting refugee claimants that Canada sends them under the Safe Third Country agreement.

The issue is whether Canada can continue to do this without violating the human rights of the claimants they send to the US.

Either way, the US won't be stopped from treating refugees and refugee claimants as it wants. It's just a question of whether Canada will continue to feed refugees into that American system.

icehorse · Nov 5, 2019

If I understand the OP correctly, it seems the concern is that Canada is considering lowering itself to trump's level of evil? If so, I hope that - in general - other countries give trump the figurative finger.

sun rise · Nov 5, 2019

9-10ths_Penguin said:
AFAIK, the US is honouring this agreement: they are accepting refugee claimants that Canada sends them under the Safe Third Country agreement.

The issue is whether Canada can continue to do this without violating the human rights of the claimants they send to the US.

Either way, the US won't be stopped from treating refugees and refugee claimants as it wants. It's just a question of whether Canada will continue to feed refugees into that American system.

The question is not that, but whether or not the current regime in power will continue to fight the idea that agreements are a two-way street.

9-10ths_Penguin · Nov 5, 2019

icehorse said:
If I understand the OP correctly, it seems the concern is that Canada is considering lowering itself to trump's level of evil? If so, I hope that - in general - other countries give trump the figurative finger.

Kinda sorta.

Canada is part of a network of countries that have agreed that refugee claimants have to be accepted at the first "safe country" they arrive at. This means that if, say, someone arrives in the US via Canada and requests asylum in the US, American authorities will return them to Canada, where they'll get their hearing and potentially be accepted as a refugee in Canada. The same works in reverse: someone who arrives in Canada via the US would have their case heard in the US and wouldn't have a right to stay in Canada.

Under this agreement, Canada has been sending refugee claimants back to the US all along. Now, though, a refugee claimant who arrived in Canada via the US and was scheduled to be returned to the US is challenging this action on the grounds that sending her to the US to be treated the way the US treats refugee claimants would be a violation of her Charter rights (i.e. her rights under the Canadian constitution) and has applied to block her deportation.

One outcome that's in the judge's power to do would be to rule that the US no longer meets the criteria for a "safe third party" and nullify the safe third party agreement between Canada and the United States.

So short version: Canada has already lowered itself to Trump's level of evil. Canada has been sending refugee claimants to the US despite knowing what conditions await them. The court challenge is an attempt to stop this from happening.

Ponder This · Nov 5, 2019

9-10ths_Penguin said:
A Canadian federal court is hearing arguments that could overturn the Safe Third Country agreement between Canada and the United States:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/safe-third-country-1.5346557

Short version: there are agreements between many developed countries - including Canada and the US - that effectively imply that refugee claimants can't "shop around" their claim. Once they arrive in one of the countries that's party to the agreement, that's where they have to make their claim for asylum. If an asylum seeker arrives in the US via Canada, the US returns them to Canada to have their refugee claim heard... and vice versa.

The case being heard this week deals with a Ugandan refugee claimant who is arguing that American treatment of refugee claimants is so bad that returning her to the US would constitute a breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This case has the potential to nullify the Safe Third Country agreement between Canada and the US. The 40,000 refugee claimants a year Canada receives from the US would then be entitled to stay in Canada (provided their claim is upheld), and the US would no longer be able to return refugee claimants who arrived via Canada back to Canada.

It would also be, effectively, a condemnation of the American system of concentration camps by the Canadian courts.

Shamefully, the Canadian government is trying to get the matter dismissed.

The hearing is scheduled to hear arguments and witnesses until Friday, and a judgement should come down some time after that.

Thoughts?

According to the article:
"the CCR and others also decided to test it in court and worked to find an asylum seeker who had been turned away"

So we know that the CCR is working hard to create litigation in court for the purpose of furthering a political agenda?

The article also says:
"It's not the first time the agreement has been subject to legal scrutiny. In 2007, it was also challenged in Federal Court, and the U.S. was declared not safe for refugees, but the decision was overturned on appeal."

So... we know that they are almost certain to lose?

Aren't they supposed to care about refugees?

9-10ths_Penguin · Nov 5, 2019

Ponder This said:
According to the article:
"the CCR and others also decided to test it in court and worked to find an asylum seeker who had been turned away"

So we know that the CCR is working hard to create litigation in court for the purpose of furthering a political agenda?

They're trying to protect people's rights, if that's what you mean.

The article also says:
"It's not the first time the agreement has been subject to legal scrutiny. In 2007, it was also challenged in Federal Court, and the U.S. was declared not safe for refugees, but the decision was overturned on appeal."

So... we know that they are almost certain to lose?

We don't know this. The US was a much safer country for refugee claimants in 2007. It's the expected treatment now that matters.

PureX · Nov 5, 2019

I gather the policy was intended to stop asylum-seekers from traveling from country to country looking for one to take them in. Instead, their plea has to be heard in the first 'first world' country they come to. They can't just be shoved onto the next country and ignored, because, now, that next country will just send them back. But sending them back to the U.S. has becomes so inhumane that the collective Canadian conscience is questioning the legitimacy of doing this. What a sad commentary on the pathetic morality of these supposed 'superpowers'.

Ponder This · Nov 5, 2019

9-10ths_Penguin said:
They're trying to protect people's rights, if that's what you mean.

We don't know this. The US was a much safer country for refugee claimants in 2007. It's the expected treatment now that matters.

If they sought out a particular individual for the purpose of advancing an agenda opposed by the system through litigation, that is not necessarily synonymous with "protecting people's rights". But it is synonymous with "trying to undermine the existing system".

"much safer" in 2007? Interesting opinion. Do you judge that based on percent of refugees granted admission? What do you base that opinion on? Is it based on Bush being president instead of Trump? What do you think such an assessment should be based on?
Why should anyone believe that the outcome of this lawsuit will be different from the 2007 precedent?

That said, I'm not sure I agree with with a system that disallows applications for asylum in other countries simply because you applied to a particular country first. I'm just not sold on the CCR's method of using litigation for political purposes. Do you think it is right to use litigation to advance a political agenda? If so, why?

lewisnotmiller · Nov 5, 2019

9-10ths_Penguin said:
I agree. I'm not as in tune with the Australian situation as I am with the US, but what I have seen is very troubling.

... though in practical terms, it's not like there are a lot of refugees who arrive in Australia and then make their way to Canada to make a refugee claim (or vice versa).

Actually, that's what brought it to mind to me. There is a group in Canada (at least some of which are ex-pat Australians) trying to bring people we have in detention over to Canada.

At least a couple have already moved.

I'm not sure what that means legally, since we do this disingenuous dance here where we hold illegal immigrants offshore. Basically we don't let them reach Australia (water borders ftw) and put them in detention in Papua New Guinea or Nauru whilst we determine their status.

We then drag our heels, leaving people in temporary detention for years.

(Credible Australian news source)

Meet the Australian expats helping ex-Manus Island detainees get a fresh start in Canada

Shad · Nov 6, 2019

9-10ths_Penguin said:
What are you on about?

Read my post and read the law in question.

Shad · Nov 6, 2019

PureX said:
I gather the policy was intended to stop asylum-seekers from traveling from country to country looking for one to take them in.

Yes. It has expanded into use of databases on sharing the burdens of refugees that have been accepted too.

Instead, their plea has to be heard in the first 'first world' country they come to.

No just first nation if it is Canada or the USA. So those that cross the border between Mexico and the USA have to apply in the USA. If someone lands in Canada they have to apply to Canada. The Treaty does not include any other nation. The First Safe Country policy is the USA's own system.

They can't just be shoved onto the next country and ignored, because, now, that next country will just send them back. But sending them back to the U.S. has becomes so inhumane that the collective Canadian conscience is questioning the legitimacy of doing this. What a sad commentary on the pathetic morality of these supposed 'superpowers'.

Considering the person in question not only failed the US system but the Canadian system she is not a refugee. Government not giving her free money is not a human rights abuse. She can find a charity or sponsor.

9-10ths_Penguin · Nov 7, 2019

Shad said:
Considering the person in question not only failed the US system but the Canadian system she is not a refugee. Government not giving her free money is not a human rights abuse. She can find a charity or sponsor.

Again: what are you on about?

She hasn't "failed" either system. Neither country has ruled on her refugee status yet. This hearing is about where her review and ruling should take place.

Shad · Nov 7, 2019

9-10ths_Penguin said:
Again: what are you on about?

She hasn't "failed" either system.

She was in the US for 4 months in detention. She either failed in her claim or just ignoring making one. She went to Canada which has exceptions in the treaty which enables Canada to review her claim. She is still being deported despite that. Ergo her problem.

The only other case mentioned I addressed below.

Neither country has ruled on her refugee status yet.

Except she is being deported.

This hearing is about where her review and ruling should take place.

The case is about the treaty not her case or anyone's.

"The legal challenge to the agreement was filed after a Salvadoran woman tried to enter Canada at an official border crossing to seek asylum, arguing she was being brutally targeted by gangs at home. She was told she was inadmissible because of the safe third country deal."

That isn't a claim for refugee status by Canada, USA nor UN standards.

Canadian court to rule on US treatment of asylum seekers

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist

sun rise

The world is on fire

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat

Shad

Veteran Member

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist

sun rise

The world is on fire

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Ponder This

Well-Known Member

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist

PureX

Veteran Member

Ponder This

Well-Known Member

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat

Shad

Veteran Member

Shad

Veteran Member

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Shad

Veteran Member