News coming out of the U.S. over the last few days has shocked and alarmed many across the world. Students, temporarily out of the country, have had their visas rescinded; refugees already on their way to the United States have been detained at airports; and that was after one day. My own thoughts on the issue are both personal and professional.

I have spent the last year conducting research in Lebanon to understand the implications of both national and local responses to the Syrian refugee crisis in the country.

Immediately, my thoughts went first to a Syrian family I met in a village in the Bekaa valley: a young couple with two children, who had been undergoing seemingly endless interviews and security clearances with the hopes of being resettled in the United States. I pictured them on a plane headed to what they believed was finally a real place of refuge, to only be devastatingly detained in an airport and told they may be sent back to Lebanon, where they face near-impossible conditions for legal stay.

I also thought of my husband — a dual Syrian-Canadian citizen currently in California for work — and what this policy means for his own work, and for any future travel we may take to the United States. I also thought of my own luck and privilege in having found safety in this country: I arrived in Canada at the age of five, as a child of refugees myself. For all of these reasons, I could not stay silent.

Ultimately, there is much confusion, still, about what this policy entails. On paper, it appears to indefinitely suspend the arrival of Syrian refugees, temporarily (120 days) halt the arrival of refugees from other countries, halt the issuance of visas for citizens of Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Yemen, and prevent entry (for 90 days, at least) to the U.S. to any visa holders from these seven countries.

As has become clear, this provides no exception for U.S. green-card holders (i.e. permanent residents), nor for individuals who are dual citizens of both a country on the list and another country. That means that people who have lived in the United States for years, who are temporarily out of the country, cannot go back home (at least for 90 days and perhaps for longer). It also means Canadian citizens who hold a dual nationality in any of the countries listed are now barred entry into the United States, as is the case with my husband.

Many Canadians, I am certain, are wondering what we can do about this. How do we demonstrate our opposition to a clearly discriminatory policy that endangers the lives and security of so many? We can, and should, organize marches in solidarity, strengthen and expand our refugee resettlement commitments, but in order to send the most powerful message we can repeal the Safe Third Country Agreement that is currently in place between Canada and the U.S.

A little-known agreement, it effectively prevents refugees arriving from the United States — with a few exceptions including U.S. citizens, unaccompanied minors and individuals who already have legal documents granting them visa-free access to Canada (which would be the case for Mexicans, for example) — from requesting asylum in Canada.

Put in place in 2002, it is an explicit acknowledgment that the United States has a fair and functioning asylum policy. In fact, the existence of “an extensive administrative system [in the United States], subject to judicial checks and balances, for assessing refugee protection applications [ … and] offers a high degree of protection to refugee protection claimants” is one of the requirements laid out in the agreement for the designation of the United States as a “safe third country.”

It has become abundantly clear that is no longer the case. As such, the Trudeau government should send a clear message to the U.S. by repealing this agreement.

This is imperative for two main reasons. First, it sends a strong signal that the United States can no longer claim to be a safe refuge, which is a very important symbolic gesture. Second, and most importantly, it provides protection for many who will find themselves at great risk because of these measures.

To provide just a few examples: Iranian graduate students who, having left their country to study in the United States, may have spoken out against unjust policies in their home country and can no longer safely return, and Yemeni, Syrian or Iraqi citizens, whose countries are embroiled in a civil war, have no safe home to return to.

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

Canada’s commitment to the protection of refugees, under its obligations as signatory to the UN Refugee Convention, must extend to them as well. If Canada wishes to uphold its commitment, then it must rescind this agreement.

Lama Mourad is a PhD candidate in political science at the University of Toronto. She spends her days researching and writing on refugee and migration issues.

Read more about: