In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court reinstating part of President Donald Trump’s travel ban, Canadian advocacy groups are calling on Ottawa to suspend a bilateral pact that bans refugees from seeking asylum in Canada if they’ve entered the country from the United States.

“We are shocked and disappointed that the Canadian government continues to hold to the view that the U.S. is a safe partner for refugee protection,” said Alex Neve, secretary general of Amnesty International Canada.

“That was not true before President Trump took office and it has become abundantly clear that his presidency is characterized by utter disregard for the safety and rights of refugees and migrants.”

Article Continued Below

In a ruling Monday, America’s highest court gave the go-ahead for a 120-day ban on all refugee claimants entering the country who don’t have any “bona fide relationship” with an American individual or group.

The court also granted a qualified permission for the White House to place a 90-day ban on visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, if they do not have credible connections in the U.S. The partial ban is expected to take effect as soon as Thursday.

Those with a “bona fide relationship,” the court noted, include foreign nationals who wish to enter the U.S. to live with or visit family, students at American universities, employees of U.S. companies or visiting scholars.

On Tuesday, Amnesty International and the Canadian Council for Refugees released a 52-page brief to Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen and Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale outlining the flaws of the U.S. asylum system and immigration detention regime that fail to meet international and Canadian standards.

Article Continued Below

“While the U.S. asylum system has long suffered from significant failings, these deficiencies have been exacerbated under the Trump administration,” said the briefing.

Click to expand

“Since assuming office, President Trump has taken steps to implement a number of policies likely to significantly erode already deficient protections for asylum seekers.”

Introduced in 2004, the Safe Third Country Agreement, with limited exceptions, limits refugees to making an asylum claim in the first of the two countries they arrive in, in order to avoid duplicate asylum claims that would clog both systems.

However, the agreement does not apply to those who cross “irregularly” at unguarded points along the border, a situation critics say encourages desperate asylum-seekers to risk their lives getting into Canada.

A spokesperson for Hussen said the government hasn't changed it's stance on the U.S.-Canada pact.

“Canada has carefully analyzed recent developments in the United States, including with respect to the recent Executive Orders related to border . . . and determined that the U.S. remains a safe country for asylum claimants,” wrote Bernie Derible in an email to the Star, noting the UN Refugee Agency shares that assessment.

Between the time Trump took office in January and the end of May, Canada received 15,170 asylum claimants, according to the Canada Border Services Agency. Among the 5,620 claimants who came by land, some 3,461 were intercepted by the RCMP crossing illegally.

Although the number of irregular border-crossers dropped slightly in May to 742 from the peak of 887 in March, the U.S. court decision could trigger another wave of refugees seeking asylum in Canada through the porous land border.

To date, there has been one reported death among asylum-seekers risking their lives to cross the border. Mavis Otuteye, a 57-year-old Ghanaian, was found dead near Emerson, Man., in late May en route to Toronto to see her only daughter. The cause of death was hypothermia.

“This agreement encourages desperate people to take desperate measures which may put their safety and even their lives at risk,” said Loly Rico, president of the Canadian Council for Refugees.

“From the perspectives of humanity, human rights and responsible border management, the Safe Third Country Agreement should be suspended. There has been no convincing explanation from the Canadian government as to why they will not take that step.”