Safe Third Country Agreement Lawsuit: What You Need to Know
The Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) is a treaty between Canada and the United States, which requires refugees to seek asylum in the first safe country they arrive in. The agreement was signed in 2002 and was intended to address the issue of “asylum shopping” – the practice of refugees traveling through multiple countries to seek asylum in the country of their choice.
However, the STCA has been the subject of controversy and criticism. In July 2017, the Canadian Council for Refugees, Amnesty International, and the Canadian Council of Churches filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the agreement. The case, known as Canadian Council for Refugees et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen, argues that the STCA violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and international human rights law.
Here’s what you need to know about the safe third country agreement lawsuit.
Grounds for the lawsuit
The plaintiffs argue that the STCA violates the rights of refugees by forcing them to seek asylum in the United States, where they may not be safe. The lawsuit contends that the United States does not qualify as a “safe” country for refugees, given the current political climate and policies of the Trump administration.
Specifically, the plaintiffs argue that the United States has a high rate of detention and deportation of asylum seekers and that the recent changes to U.S. asylum policies have made it more difficult for refugees to obtain protection. Therefore, they argue that it is unconstitutional for Canada to turn away refugees at the border and force them to seek asylum in the United States.
Status of the case
The case was heard in Federal Court in Toronto in November 2018. The plaintiffs argued that the STCA violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees protection against cruel and unusual treatment and the right to life, liberty, and security of the person.
The Canadian government argued that the agreement is an important tool for managing the flow of refugees and that the United States is a safe country for asylum seekers. However, the plaintiffs presented evidence that the United States is not safe for refugees, including expert testimony and news reports.
The decision of the Federal Court is expected to be released in 2020. If the court finds that the STCA is unconstitutional, the agreement could be struck down, and refugees may be allowed to seek asylum in Canada even if they have arrived from the United States.
Implications for refugees and Canadian immigration policy
If the STCA is struck down, it could have significant implications for refugees and Canadian immigration policy. It would mean that refugees who arrive in Canada from the United States would be allowed to seek asylum in Canada. This could result in a higher number of asylum seekers and put pressure on Canada’s immigration system.
It would also be a significant shift in Canadian immigration policy, which has relied on the STCA to manage the flow of refugees. If the agreement is struck down, the Canadian government will need to develop new policies to address the issue of “asylum shopping” and manage the influx of asylum seekers.
Conclusion
The STCA lawsuit is an important case that raises fundamental questions about the rights of refugees and the role of international treaties in Canadian immigration policy. The outcome of the case could have significant implications for refugees and Canadian immigration policy. It remains to be seen how the Federal Court will rule, but this case serves as a reminder of the complexities of refugee protection and the challenges of managing refugee flows in a global context.