The government has repeatedly stated that it is negotiating with the United States to “modernize” the safe third country agreement, but has never explained what this means and whether any changes to the agreement would prevent people from filing asylum claims after crossing the border between official ports of entry. 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] For all other countries that in the future could be classified as safe third countries: the Trump administration is implementing the U.S. asylum system in a methodical manner to reduce immigration to the United States. One of the most devastating changes introduced by the government is the negotiation of agreements with Central American countries that require asylum seekers transiting through a country to seek refuge there first. As of February 2017, more and more refugees have begun to cross the Canadian border at locations other than official border checkpoints. To avoid the effects of the agreement, all refugees at a border crossing would be automatically repatriated to the United States, in accordance with the CAB provisions. [24] Since it is not illegal to cross the border outside a port of entry under the Immigration and Refugee Act or the rules associated with it, as long as the person immediately reports to a Canada Border Services Agency official and st.c.a.

does not apply to rights outside a port of entry, these are persons who otherwise are not entitled to assert their rights after an irregular crossing. possible. [25] In some cases, these refugees have been amputated by frostbite[23] and concerns have been expressed that some refugees may freeze to death while crossing the border. [26] Under the Trump administration, the Department of Homeland Security lobbied Central American governments to sign agreements to prevent migrants from traveling north to the U.S.-Mexico border. Agreements have been reached on the safety of third-country nationals to share responsibility for assisting asylum seekers and to ensure that they are safe and protected from the damage they are fleeing. The Trump administration`s repeated attacks on the legal immigration system – as well as the president`s hateful rhetoric about asylum seekers – show that the administration does not recognize or intend to criticize its responsibility to protect asylum seekers. Agreements with Central American countries are moving tactically south of the U.S. border.

The government said the abolition of the agreement would result in an “inflow” of asylum seekers at the border, making it more difficult for several levels of government to maintain the existing refugee system, including the provision of housing and other social services. Ahmed Hussen, speaking as Canada`s Minister of the IRCC, said the terms of the agreement on the security of third-country nationals are still being respected.