User:Sonicezhog/sandbox

Ezra Fama de Smit / ID 27762275

The article, though brief, was generally informative about what the Canada–United States Safe Third Country Agreement is, and delivers the information in a neutral voice. It has clear sections which are well organized. For the most part, it is well sourced, with a few exceptions. The sections missing proper citations were "area of effect", "exceptions", and "Controversy and calls for suspension>Following U.S. executive orders". These sections are also the only ones which were somewhat vague in the article. I have added citations to improve those sections, and fleshed out the information in them. I have also added sections which I believe were missing in order to have a more thorough article, and hope that if I publish my contributions, others will also add to those sections. The text which I have added i will appear in red. Citations could not be pasted from the original article, therefore all citations appearing on this page have been added by me.

The Canada–United States Safe Third Country Agreement, officially the Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America for cooperation in the examination of refugee status claims from nationals of third countries, is a treaty between the governments of Canada and the United States to better manage the flow of refugee claimants at the shared land border.

Under the agreement persons seeking refugee status must make their claim in the first country they arrive in, either the United States or Canada, unless they qualify for an exception. For example, refugee claimants who are citizens of a country other than the United States that arrive from the United States at the Canada–United States land border can only pursue their refugee claims in Canada if they meet an exception under the Safe Third Country Agreement.

The agreement was signed on December 5, 2002 in Washington, D.C. by Bertin Côté (Deputy Head of Mission, Embassy of Canada) and Arthur E. Dewey (Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration, United States Department of State). It entered into force on December 29, 2004.

Contents

• Objectives
• Areas of effect
• Effects of the Agreement
• Exceptions to the agreement
• Criticisms
• Controversy and calls for suspension
  • Following U.S. executive orders
    • Calls for suspension
    • Emergency parliamentary debate
  • Compliance with international law
  • Legal challenges
  • Dangerous border crossings
• References
• External links

Objectives

Objectives of the agreement include increasing cooperation between the Canadian and American immigration systems as pertains to refugees in order to improve efficiency, decrease abuse of rules and restore popular confidence in the systems.

Areas of effect

The Safe Third Country Agreement applies to refugee claimants who are seeking entry to Canada or the United States at Canada-United States land border crossings (including by train). It also applies at airports if a person seeking refugee protection in one country was determined not to be a refugee in the other, and is in transit through the other country as part of their deportation. For example, a refugee claimant in Canada who has been determined not to be a refugee in the United States, has been ordered deported from the United States, and is in transit through a Canadian airport as part of their removal from the United States. In all other cases of a person claiming status inside the country (not at the border), the agreement does not apply.

Effects of the agreement

The monitoring measures included in the agreement are only meant to check if it is being implemented properly, not to assess it's external effects, therefore information about its direct impacts may be limited.

Since the agreement has come into effect, there has been a sharp decrease in the number of claimants at the border.

Exceptions to the agreement

Exceptions to the Safe Third Country Agreement are defined as four types: family member exceptions, unaccompanied minor exceptions, document holder exceptions and public interest exceptions.

1. Family member exception: the arriving person must have a family member who already has a legal status in Canada, such as citizenship or a work permit.
2. Unaccompanied minor exception: applies to those under 18 years old who are not with a guardian and whose guardian does not live in Canada or the USA.
3. document holder exception: may apply to those holding a valid visa or permit.
4. public interest exception: may apply to someone entering Canada who has faces a death sentence and who is deemed not to pose a security threat.

In addition to meeting the criteria for an exception under the agreement, refugee claimants must still meet all other eligibility criteria of the relevant immigration legislation for the country they are claiming status in.

Criticisms

A key criticism of the system put in place by the agreement is that Canada and the USA have different procedures and definitions regarding refugees. This means someone may be delivered different results based on which country they are forced to seek asylum in under the agreement. For example the United States does not consider gender persecution to be grounds to claim asylum, but Canada does, meaning that someone arriving first in the United States fleeing gender persecution cannot then continue on to make a claim in Canada, despite the fact that in the United States their claim cannot be based on gender alone.

Since the area of effect applies only to those presenting at the border (and in some cases airports), and not to those making claims inside a country, it has been argued that the agreement encourages human smuggling and illegal border crossings so that people can present once already inside the country, which would mean that the agreement has failed to make the border more secure. These crossings are difficult to track, so the overall impact in this area is uncertain.

Controversy and calls for suspension

Following U.S. executive orders

Shortly after inauguration, U.S. President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 13769, which suspended the United States Refugee Admissions Program and banned travel from seven African and Middle Eastern countries; Executive Order 13768, which revoked eligibility for federal funding for sanctuary jurisdictions; and Executive Order 13767, which directed that a wall be built along the Mexico–United States border.

Calls for suspension

In response to Executive Order 13769, immigrant and civil rights advocacy groups in Canada called for the federal government to suspend the Safe Third Country Agreement. These groups included Amnesty International, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l’immigration, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, the Canadian Council for Refugees, and a group of 200 law professors from universities across Canada.

Emergency parliamentary debate

On January 30, 2017, Jenny Kwan (New Democratic Party critic for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) proposed an emergency debate on "President Trump's ban on immigration and travel from seven countries in the Middle East and North Africa".

During the debate, the New Democratic Party called on the government to immediately suspend the Safe Third Country Agreement, citing that "Canada can no longer have confidence that the American refugee system is providing a safe haven for those who face persecution". The Official Opposition Conservative Party of Canada stated that they would not oppose a suspension of the agreement, while the Green Party of Canada voiced support for suspending the agreement.

Ahmed Hussen, speaking as Canada's Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, claimed that the conditions of the Safe Third Country Agreement continued to be met. The governing Liberal Party of Canada did not communicate any plans or intentions to suspend the agreement.

Compliance with international law

Safe third country agreements are not explicitly mentioned in the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees or the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. Instead, their legality is derived from Article 31 of the convention, which states that a refugee should not be punished for illegally entering a country if they are arriving directly from a country where they were under threat. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) itself has cautioned against interpreting safe third country agreements too broadly, though it acknowledges that they may be acceptable in some circumstances. Such ambiguities have led some legal professionals in Canada to question the legality of the Canada–United States Safe Third Country Agreement.

Legal callenges

A Canadian court case challenged the legality of the Safe Third Country Agreement in 2007, Canadian Council for Refugees et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen. The agreement was found unconstitutional. However, an appeal the following year overturned the result.

Amnesty International Canada, the Canadian Council for Refugees, and the Canadian Council of Churches announced in July 2016 that they would challenge the definition of the United States as a safe third country for refugees.

Dangerous border crossings

As of February 2017, increasing numbers of refugees have been crossing the Canadian border at locations other than official border checkpoints. This is in order to avoid the effects of the agreement, which requires refugees presenting at a border crossing to be turned back to the United States. In some cases, these refugees have received amputations due to frostbite and concerns have been raised that some refugees may freeze to death on their way across the border.

Julie Taub, an immigration and refugee lawyer, claims that, since the introduction of the agreement in late 2004, the Canada Border Services Agency has lost its capacity and would be "overwhelmed" if the agreement were repealed.