Canadian court: Safe Third Country Agreement with U.S. violates rights

Migrants, refugees, undocumented workers and their supporters rally outside the office of Canadian Immigration Minister Marco Mendicino in Toronto July 4, 2020. (CNS photo/Chris Helgren)

TORONTO (CNS) — Canada’s Federal Court has ruled the country’s Safe Third Country Agreement with the United States violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by sending refugees who arrive at Canada’s land borders back to detention in the United States.

It is the second time a federal judge has struck down the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement on constitutional grounds.

Advertisement

For Catholic refugee advocates, the ruling is a victory, said Norbert Piche, Jesuit Refugee Service country director for Canada.

“If we’re going to be saying that we are Christians, that we believe in what Christ tells us, then we have to believe in welcoming the stranger,” Piche said. “The stranger is the refugee claimant, the person who is fleeing persecution. If we are truly, bona fide Christians, we will stand up for these people.”

[Don’t miss the latest news from the church and the world. Sign up for our daily newsletter.]

“We can continue being Canada -- a fair country and a country that protects refugees,” said Loly Rico, co-director of the FCJ Refugee Centre, a shelter sponsored by the Faithful Companions of Jesus.

The case was brought in 2017 on behalf of three women by the Canadian Council of Churches, Amnesty International Canada and the Canadian Council for Refugees. It was largely a reprise of a challenge the same parties brought to court a decade earlier. In 2007, a federal judge struck down the agreement on constitutional grounds, only to have the decision later overturned by an appeals court that ruled the three organizations did not have standing to argue on behalf of refugees before the court.

In the 2007 ruling against the Safe Third Country Agreement, Justice Michael Phelan found it is unreasonable to conclude that the U.S. complies with its obligations under the 1951 U.N. Convention on Refugees and the Convention against Torture.

In the July 22 ruling, Justice Ann Marie McDonald found “the evidence clearly demonstrates that those returned to the U.S. by Canadian officials are detained as a penalty.”

[Want to discuss politics with other America readers? Join our Facebook discussion group, moderated by America’s writers and editors.]

Both judges ruled that the Safe Third Country Agreement violates section seven of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees “life, liberty and security of the person.”

McDonald gave the government six months to either appeal her decision or exit the agreement with the U.S.

“I think we can expect that it will be appealed,” Peter Noteboom, Canadian Council of Churches general secretary, told The Catholic Register, Canadian weekly.

Along with Amnesty International and the Canadian Council for Refugees, Noteboom urged the government not to appeal.

Canada’s churches have been fighting the Safe Third Country Agreement since it was first agreed in 2002 and entered into force in 2004. Fighting for a fair and open welcome for refugees is not something churches can back away from, Noteboom said.

“It’s not something extra. It’s not some sort of marginal or external thing to churches and faith communities in Canada. It’s part of how they see themselves,” he said. “For decades already, the whole initiative, the whole movement of caring for refugees, of working with refugees and immigrants coming to Canada has been in the genetic code of faith communities and churches.”

Harvard law professor Deborah Anker called the Canadian ruling “a very important decision.”

“It’s a human rights judgment against the United States for its asylum policy by a credible allied nation,” she told The Catholic Register. “It’s tremendously significant. It will get cited in litigation (in the U.S.) I’m sure and in policy documents. ... If there’s a (Joe) Biden administration that takes office at the end of January, it will make a difference that a Canadian court so held.”

While the case was before the court in Canada, conditions in U.S. immigration detention centers have gotten worse, said Anker, who was an expert witness in the case.

“Conditions in detention are dangerous now because of COVID-19, more dangerous,” she said.

Even if many of the issues and individual cases at issue in the decision predate the Trump administration, the ruling highlights the deterioration of the U.S. refugee system in the last three years, said lawyer Don Kerwin, executive director of the Scalabrini Fathers’ Center for Migration Studies in New York.

“The United States has an administration in place right now that is doing its level best to eviscerate the U.S. asylum system,” Kerwin said. “It’s part of a broader effort to decimate all U.S. refugee protection programs.”

Kerwin called the Canadian court’s judgment on U.S. treatment of refugees “understandable” and “really lamentable.”

“What the Canadian court is pointing out is how badly the United States now treats refugees and asylum-seekers, and how precipitously it has fallen in terms of its response to people in great need,” he said.

We don’t have comments turned on everywhere anymore. We have recently relaunched the commenting experience at America and are aiming for a more focused commenting experience with better moderation by opening comments on a select number of articles each day.

But we still want your feedback. You can join the conversation about this article with us in social media on Twitter or Facebook, or in one of our Facebook discussion groups for various topics.

Or send us feedback on this article with one of the options below:

We welcome and read all letters to the editor but, due to the volume received, cannot guarantee a response.

In order to be considered for publication, letters should be brief (around 200 words or less) and include the author’s name and geographic location. Letters may be edited for length and clarity.

We open comments only on select articles so that we can provide a focused and well-moderated discussion on interesting topics. If you think this article provides the opportunity for such a discussion, please let us know what you'd like to talk about, or what interesting question you think readers might want to respond to.

If we decide to open comments on this article, we will email you to let you know.

If you have a message for the author, we will do our best to pass it along. Note that if the article is from a wire service such as Catholic News Service, Religion News Service, or the Associated Press, we will not have direct contact information for the author. We cannot guarantee a response from any author.

We welcome any information that will help us improve the factual accuracy of this piece. Thank you.

Please consult our Contact Us page for other options to reach us.

When you click submit, this article page will reload. You should see a message at the top of the reloaded page confirming that your feedback has been received.

Advertisement

The latest from america

Robert MacDougall in “Boys State” (photo: A24) 
In a new award-winning documentary about Texas Boys State, democracy is fraught with conflict.
Ryan Di CorpoAugust 14, 2020
We use the words “mystery” and “miracle” not to say that science has been stumped but rather to express the expansive claim that an event makes upon us.
Terrance KleinAugust 14, 2020
It has been two years since the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report was published, documenting in disturbing detail at least 1,000 cases of abuse by 300 predator priests spanning seven decades.
Colleen DulleAugust 14, 2020
The precedent for attacking an opponent on religious grounds is more apt than you might think.