The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is responsible for ensuring compliance with the Refugee Convention, which is even provided for in the Convention itself. Countries should therefore consult the refugee agency before changing their asylum laws. The Norwegian government did not do so when it radically changed its immigration law and forced asylum seekers to return to Russia. The EU also seems to ignore the High Commissioner`s warning that the repatriation of refugees to Turkey violates international law. UNHCR stresses that the principles of the first country of asylum and the safe third country must be regarded as practices that have developed between States and not as principles based on international refugee law and not as principles based on international refugee law. It argues that the principles can help streamline the processing of asylum applications where there is formal cooperation between countries, such as the Dublin Regulation, but warns against overly broad an interpretation of the principles. Asylum seekers have often sought refuge in the United States and Canada. The two countries have adopted a common policy known as the Safe Third Country Agreement. The agreement stipulates that anyone seeking refugee protection must apply in the country where they arrive, unless they are entitled to an exemption from the agreement. The application must be made at the official ports of entry, otherwise they will be rejected.
Guatemala as a “safe third country”: The Trump administration has struck a “safe third country” agreement with Guatemala that would require asylum seekers traveling through Guatemala to the United States to first seek asylum in Guatemala. The Safe Third Country Agreement is not a treaty requiring congressional approval, and it can be signed and signed into law unilaterally by the president. This has allowed the Trump administration to bypass Congress and the courts, impose new restrictions on asylum seekers, curb migration to the United States, and transfer the U.S. obligation to accept asylum seekers to other countries. The so-called “first country of asylum” principle often justifies the decision to return asylum seekers to another country. This means that a country can refuse a person`s asylum application if they have already obtained protection from another country. It is also often referred to as the “safe third country” principle. This broader term covers other relations between an asylum seeker and a third country in which he or she is considered safe. These two principles are at the heart of the Dublin Regulation, of which Norway is a member.
The Dublin Regulation aims to streamline the management of asylum in Europe by allowing only one country to process an asylum application. usually the country where the person first arrives in Europe. It aims to avoid “asylum shopping” when a person seeks protection in one country after being rejected by another. Although the Dublin Regulation applies only to European countries that have signed it, the two previous principles are based on an interpretation of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and therefore apply to all countries that have acceded to it. The principles are not directly mentioned in the Convention, but derive from article 31, which states that a refugee shall not be punished for his illegal entry into a country if he comes directly from a country where he has been threatened. In November, the majority of parties in the Norwegian parliament agreed to amend the Immigration Act. Norway no longer requires a country to accept and process asylum applications in order to be considered a safe third country. The change meant that Russia was considered safe to take in asylum seekers and, as a result, people were forced to return. The Norwegian government amended the immigration law in a single week in November, assuring the public that it had consulted the best human rights experts and that the change was in line with international obligations.
However, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and several experts in international law vehemently rejected the amendment. Julie Taub, an immigration and refugee lawyer, says that since the agreement was launched in late 2004, the Canada Border Services Agency has lost its capacity and would be “overwhelmed” if the agreement were repealed. [23] The administration of Donald J. Trump is urging Guatemala and several other Latin American countries to sign agreements on “safe third countries” that would require migrants to seek asylum in the countries through which they travel, rather than the United States. But can these countries provide them with security? If all of these agreements are implemented as planned, tens of thousands of asylum seekers will travel to the United States. of the Northern Triangle is stopped at the southern border of Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador or Mexico. And people who immigrate from outside the Northern Triangle must essentially seek asylum from the south at the Border between Honduras and Nicaragua. The agreement helps both governments better manage access to the asylum system in each country for people crossing the Canada-U.S.
land border. The two countries signed the agreement on 5 December 2002 and it entered into force on 29 December 2004. The Safe Third Country Agreement applies to refugee claimants who wish to enter Canada or the United States at land border crossings between Canada and the United States (including by rail). It also applies at airports if a person seeking refugee protection in country B has not been classified as a refugee in country A and is in transit through country A as part of his or her deportation. “Stay in Mexico” policy: Instead of a safe third country agreement with Mexico, the Trump administration has been implementing its “stay in Mexico” policy since January 2019. This policy requires Central Americans seeking asylum to return to Mexico indefinitely while their claims are processed. The “Remain in Mexico” policy is a clear violation of U.S. and international law, but the Supreme Court has allowed it to continue while its validity is challenged in court. Although the U.S. has not signed an explicit agreement with Mexico, DHS has confirmed that Mexican asylum seekers will also be among those affected by agreements with other countries. Under the U.S. Refugee Act of 1980, these agreements are not considered treaties, so they can be concluded without congressional approval.
Asylum seekers can only be deported to countries where their lives are not threatened and where they have full access to fair asylum procedures. Safe third country agreements have been created to share responsibility for assisting asylum seekers and ensuring that they are safe and protected from the damage they flee. The Trump administration`s repeated attacks on the legal immigration system — as well as the president`s hateful rhetoric about asylum seekers — show that this administration does not recognize or intend to abide by its responsibility to protect asylum seekers. Asylum seekers are required to submit their application in the country they enter, which is a party to the Safe Third Country Agreement. If they do not, the other countries in the agreement can reject their applications and send them back to that country. The government is pushing for several new agreements on the security of third countries: starting in February 2017, more and more asylum seekers began crossing the Canadian border at locations other than official border checkpoints. To avoid the impact of the agreement, all refugees who report to a border crossing would be automatically returned to the United States under STCA regulations. [24] Since it is not illegal under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act or related regulations to cross the border outside a port of entry, as long as the person immediately presents himself or herself to a Canada Border Services Agency official and the CASS does not apply to applications outside a port of entry, persons who are not otherwise eligible may make a claim after an irregular passage.
[25] In some cases, these refugees have been amputated due to frostbite[23] and concerns have been raised that some refugees may freeze to death while crossing the border. [26] There was concern about the lack of security laws to protect refugees in the United States […].