U.S. President Donald Trump’s treatment of migrants and refugees was on trial in a Canadian court on Monday as human rights and refugee lawyers argued that his punitive policies have made America unsafe for asylum seekers.

In a packed hearing room in Toronto, the Federal Court of Canada was asked to strike down the so-called Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement, under which both countries deem themselves to be safe havens for refugees and agree to ban would-be claimants from entering either country at official border crossings.

American policies of separating migrant children from their families and removing people without a hearing or an appeal violate international laws and no longer make the U.S. a safe haven for those seeking asylum. And, Canada’s actions in turning people away at the border are a violation of their charter rights, claim the three individual litigants who had been denied access to asylum here under the bilateral pact, along with lawyers for three Canadian rights groups who were given standing in the constitutional challenge.

“Year after year, month after month, week after week, Canada wilfully turns its back on refugee claimants at our border, relying on the increasingly obvious fiction that the U.S. is a safe country for all of them, and that the U.S. is a legitimate and reliable partner for refugee protection,” Andrew Brouwer, one of nine lawyers representing the litigants, told Justice Ann Marie McDonald.

“Canada is returning refugee claimants daily to face jail in the U.S. — and a grave risk that they will not get access to refugee protection there … We are therefore seeking the intervention of this court.”

The agreement, implemented in 2004, was originally touted by both Canadian and U.S. officials as a way to curb “asylum shopping.” However, critics have long argued that the U.S. asylum system is cruel and inhumane, especially now under Trump.

Trump’s anti-migrant policies have spurred an influx of so-called irregular migrants skirting asylum restrictions by crossing outside of Canada’s official ports of entry, where restrictions apply. More than 50,000 asylum seekers — many ineligible to make a claim in the U.S. after failing to do so within the first year of arrival — have come here that way from south of the border over the past two years.

Outside the Toronto court, some 100 people hoisted placards that said, “Justice for refugees at our border” and “Uphold all laws for refugees,” and demanded the suspension of the agreement in support of the litigation led by Amnesty International, the Canadian Council for Refugees and the Canadian Council of Churches.

“The U.S. is not safe. You can stay outside on the street because you don’t have nothing when you’re a refugee,” said Kikome Afisa of Uganda, who was detained in the U.S. for four months before she was released and joined other irregular migrants through an unofficial land crossing in Quebec in May. Her asylum hearing has yet to be scheduled.

“You come from your country because of some problem. The (Ugandan) government is killing people and I’m looking to be safe.”

Brouwer said those returned to the U.S. under the bilateral agreement are generally handcuffed and imprisoned in an immigration detention centre or in a county jail, with limited access to legal counsel, let alone a regular review of detention conditions. They have one chance to be released on bail but the required bonds — ranging from $5,000 (U.S.) to $20,000 — are often out of their reach.

“They will be exposed to an environment with staggering rates of sexual assault and sexual harassment, largely perpetrated by immigration officers or contractors. And the health conditions that are so poor that people are dying in detention,” he said.

The safe country agreement has explicit provisions to allow officials in each country to exercise discretion in applying the asylum restrictions so Canadian border officers can assess a would-be claimant’s circumstances and decide whether to adjourn an eligibility examination, grant an exemption and issue a temporary permit for the individual to enter in Canada and get necessary legal advice.

“Successive Canadian governments have steadfastly refused to implement these measures, even as conditions in the U.S. have gone from bad to worse — and now far worse,” said Brouwer.

Lawyer Leigh Salsberg said asylum seekers are now routinely charged with and convicted of “illegal” entry under Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy as an attempt to “thwart” their access to asylum in the U.S. and the mass separation of children and families is another way for the administration to “deter” refugees from coming.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

“The family separation policy that hit the headlines is something unique,” Salsberg told the court. “It didn’t come out of nowhere.”

The five-day hearing resumes Tuesday with government lawyers presenting their arguments later.