Refugees seek a different port if you've visited the USA - Canada's Closed

If a refugee claimant passes through the US on the way to Canada they may be denied a right to apply for refugee status in Canada. This is because the USA is considered a "Safe third country", a country with high human rights standards that affords approximately equal protection for those fleeing persecution. But what happens if the third country is not as safe as it used to be? What if it becomes a sender of refugees?

This is a concern raised in today's Globe and Mail:

The safe-country dilemma: why offering asylum is an obligation

JANET DENCH and KAREN HAMILTON AND ALEX NEVE

Special to Globe and Mail Update

December 6, 2007 at 12:33 AM EST

Last week, Mr. Justice Michael Phelan of the Federal Court of Canada ruled that, when all of the evidence is considered, it is not reasonably possible to conclude that the United States is a safe country for refugees. As a result, he found that Canada is wrong to force refugee claimants back to the U.S. without giving them a hearing in this country. It was bound to be an unpopular decision, for all the reasons that make refugees among the most vulnerable and abused people in the world.

The Globe and Mail editorial Moving To Reject The Refugee Pact (Dec. 1) illustrates what refugee claimants are up against — in Canada and in other countries. Refugees are seen as an inconvenience: a challenge to border control and immigration management. They are also faceless non-citizens, making it easy to minimize the harsh realities of persecution they face if we disregard their right to asylum. They are frequently presented as nothing more than numbers: the numbers of claimants at the border, the numbers of claimants in the backlog.

But refugees are not just numbers: They are human beings.

Judge Phelan's decision is also doomed to be unpopular because it faces the reality that the U.S. violates human rights. Refugees often find themselves victims of the unwillingness of governments to imply criticism of other countries by acknowledging the shortcomings in their human-rights records or their refugee protection systems. This is particularly the case when the other country is large, powerful and very close by. As noted in the decision, the federal cabinet has failed to review the status of the U.S. as a safe third country, as required by law, despite significant developments, including important changes to the U.S. asylum law that cried out for review. Perhaps the cabinet held off because it knew that only one conclusion could be reached following such a review, and it didn't have the courage to declare the U.S. in violation of its human-rights obligations.

Janet Dench is executive director of the Canadian Council for Refugees. Karen Hamilton is general secretary of the Canadian Council of Churches. Alex Neve is secretary-general of Amnesty International Canada. The three organizations, along with John Doe, launched the legal action that resulted in Judge Phelan's decision.