- Dozens of protesters gathered in front of the Canadian Public Safety Minister’s office in Toronto demanding an end to the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) between Canada and the United States after eight people died by drowning as they tried to cross into the country.
- STCA, which took effect in 2004, aimed to control the migration of asylum seekers by turning back asylum seekers trying to cross from the United States into Canada or vice versa at formal border crossings and telling them to apply for asylum in the first “safe” country they arrived in.
- Critics say this policy separates families and pushes immigrants to try to cross the border via deadly informal routes.
The STCA (Safe Third Country Agreement) between Canada and the United States is facing calls for termination following the death of eight people who drowned while attempting to enter Canada. Protesters gathered in front of Canadian Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino’s office in Toronto, demanding that the STCA be abolished and that all migrants be granted permanent resident status.
The STCA, which came into effect in 2004, aimed to control the migration of asylum seekers. Under the original agreement, asylum seekers who try to cross from the United States into Canada or vice versa at formal border crossings are turned back and told to apply for asylum in the first “safe” country they arrived in. However, as refugees started to enter Canada from irregular crossing, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Government came under pressure to amend the agreement to cover the entire length of the U.S-Canada border.
The recent deaths of eight people from two families who were trying to enter the United States from Canada by boat across the St. Lawrence River near Akwesasne, Quebec, have reignited calls for the STCA to be scrapped. Critics argue that the policy separates families and pushes immigrants to try to cross the border via deadly informal routes.
In this article, we will explore the background of the STCA, the recent amendments made to the agreement, and the arguments for and against its continuation.
Background of the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA)
The STCA was signed by Canada and the United States in 2002 and came into effect in 2004. The agreement aimed to control the migration of asylum seekers by requiring them to apply for asylum in the first “safe” country they arrived in. This meant that asylum seekers who tried to cross from the United States into Canada or vice versa at formal border crossings would be turned back and told to apply for asylum in the first “safe” country they arrived in.
The rationale behind the agreement was that Canada and the United States were both “safe” countries, and therefore, there was no need for asylum seekers to cross the border irregularly. The agreement was intended to prevent “asylum shopping,” whereby individuals would move from one country to another in search of the best asylum outcome.
Recent Amendments to the STCA
In July 2020, the Federal Court of Canada declared that the STCA was unconstitutional because it violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by sending asylum seekers back to the United States, where they may face detention and other human rights violations. The court gave the Canadian government six months to respond.
In November 2020, the Canadian government announced that it would amend the STCA to allow refugee claimants to seek asylum in the first safe country they arrive in, regardless of whether they enter at a formal border crossing or an irregular crossing. The amendments came into effect on January 1, 2021.
You might be interested in…
Biden’s Visit to Canada: An Authentic Showcase of the Importance of Canada-US Relations
Arguments for and Against the Continuation of the STCA
Proponents of the STCA argue that it is the best way to manage the world’s longest land border and to ensure that asylum seekers are processed fairly and efficiently. They argue that the agreement has reduced the number of irregular border crossings and has helped to prevent “asylum shopping.”
Opponents of the STCA argue that it violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by sending asylum seekers back to the United States, where they may face detention and other human rights violations. They argue that the agreement separates families and pushes immigrants to try to cross the border via deadly informal routes.
The recent deaths of eight people who drowned while trying to cross into Canada have reignited calls for the STCA to be scrapped. Critics argue that the policy is inhumane and that it puts lives at risk.
Conclusion
The recent deaths of eight people who drowned while attempting to cross into Canada have led to calls for the termination of the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) between Canada and the United States. The STCA, which came into effect in 2004, aims to control the migration of asylum seekers by requiring them to apply for asylum in the first “safe” country they arrive in.
While proponents argue that the agreement reduces the number of irregular border crossings and helps prevent “asylum shopping,” opponents argue that it violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and puts lives at risk. The recent tragedy has reignited debates over the STCA’s continuation and underscores the importance of finding humane solutions to the issue of asylum seekers.
