Safe Third Country Agreement End It

McDonald gave the government until the end of January to prepare for the break of the agreement because it understood that it was in the public interest not to terminate the agreement immediately. Under the agreement, refugee claimants must apply for refugee protection in the first safe country they arrive in, unless they are entitled to a waiver from the agreement. McDonald suspended his decision for six months to give Parliament a chance to respond. The agreement is maintained during this period. Nevertheless, the Trudeau government has decided to appeal the decision to maintain an untenable agreement, at a time when the Trump administration`s racist and nativist policies make this all the more dangerous and illustrate the contradictions of refugee and immigration policy in Canada. 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. Conventions on safe third-country nationals are not explicitly mentioned in the 1951 Refugee Convention or the 1967 Protocol on the Status of Refugees. Rather, their legitimacy derives from Article 31 of the 1951 Convention, which states that a refugee should not be punished for illegal entry into a country if he arrives directly from a country where he is threatened. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has itself warned against over-interpreting safe third country agreements, although it acknowledges that they may be acceptable in certain circumstances. [22] Such ambiguities have prompted some Canadian legal experts to question the legality of the Canada-U.S.

safe third country agreement. [23] Those who are denounced for a serious criminal past cannot apply for protection for refugees, no matter how they enter the country. The government appealed McDonald`s decision and argued that there would be „irreparable harm“ to the rule of law and the common good if the border agreement were overturned. On January 30, 2017, critic Jenny Kwan of the New Democratic Party (PND) of IMMIGRATION, refugees and citizens of Canada (IRCC) proposed an emergency debate on „President Trump`s immigration and travel ban from seven countries in the Middle East and North Africa.“ [17] During the debate, the NDP called on the government to immediately suspend the agreement on the security of third-country nationals, citing the fact that „Canada can no longer trust that the U.S. refugee system provides refuge for those at risk of persecution.“ [18] The official Conservative Party of Canada has stated that it will not oppose the suspension of the agreement,[19] while the Green Party of Canada has expressed support for the suspension of the agreement. [20] If the government wins its appeal, which is likely to be heard in late February or early March, the border agreement will almost certainly remain intact.