Canadian authorities have returned more than 1,600 asylum seekers to the United States in 2025 without hearing their case for refugee protection, according to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). Many have landed in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody.

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
    1·
    5 days ago

    I mean, in 2005 the US was a lot closer to Canada on multiple fronts when it comes to human rights. I’m kind of surprised that the court sided with the challengers - and not at all surprised the decision was successfully appealed in 2009, which you probably should mention.

    • Arcanepotato@crazypeople.onlineOPEnglish
      1·
      5 days ago

      It was successfully appealed in 2008, if we’re being picky.

      The appeal was based in the fact that the judge found that the basis upon which a regulation was made (i.e. the position that the states is a safe country) does not have to be absolutely correct, so long as the gov considered if it might be true.

      (See: https://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/36041/index.do)

      [57] Understanding precisely what is in issue in a judicial review application is important when it comes time to determine the standard of review as well as the scope of the review that can be conducted by the Court. An attack aimed at the vires of a regulation involves the narrow question of whether the conditions precedent set out by Parliament for the exercise of the delegated authority are present at the time of the promulgation, an issue that invariably calls for a standard of correctness.

      …

      [60] Despite this language, the matter raised by the application is a pure vires issue (see the relevant part of the application for judicial review quoted at paragraph 15 above).

      …

      [78] Subsection 101(2) does not refer to “actual” compliance or compliance “in absolute terms” nor does it otherwise specify the type and extent of compliance contemplated. However, Parliament has specified the four factors to be considered in determining whether a country can be designated. These factors are general in nature and are indicative of Parliament’s intent that the matter of compliance be assessed on the basis of an appreciation by the GIC of the country’s policies, practices and human rights record. Once it is accepted, as it must be in this case, that the GIC has given due consideration to these four factors, and formed the opinion that the candidate country is compliant with the relevant Articles of the Conventions, there is nothing left to be reviewed judicially. I stress that there is no suggestion in this case that the GIC acted in bad faith or for an improper purpose.

      I mentioned it was challenged back then to demonstrate that it’s been known to be problematic since the beginning.

      If we want to follow along with the details there have been further challenges, started in 2017, which were on the basis that it violated the charter. The courts agreed in 2020, but again it was appealed and the court gave it’s ruling in 2023: https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/19957/index.do

      I remember watching Trudeau respond to this in 2020, when he was doing his daily appearances from the governor generals cottage.

      I’m not trying to shame anyone for not knowing, I get that there is a lot going on in the world and people are struggling in an individual basis too. But it really shocks me when are surprised that it’s not all sunshine and rainbows and open arms. I actually learned about it in 2017, when the PM was on TV saying canada would welcome people. Not if they are being deported from the US, I guess 🤷🏻‍♀️

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        1·
        22 hours ago

        First off, thanks for going into so much detail, I appreciate it.

        It was never all rainbows and open arms. That’s aspirational at best, and the path for immigrants is really, really hard. Sadly, not everyone even thinks that’s a bad thing. I do expect that we will draw a line at some point, though.

        From the most recent appeal decision:

        A degree of difference as between the legal schemes applicable in the two countries can be tolerated, so long as the American system is not fundamentally unfair.

        With respect to gross disproportionality, the question is whether the impugned legislation’s effects on the s. 7 interests are so grossly disproportionate to its purposes that they cannot rationally be supported. Neither a risk of detention with opportunities for release and review nor a risk of medical isolation meets this high threshold. In Canada, as in the United States, these risks are within the mutually held norms accepted by our free and democratic societies.

        As of 2023, the US was a liberal democracy, if a really hollowed out one, and there hasn’t been a big, decisive collapse even now. A different case with different rights violations might get a different conclusion, and I have to wonder if they would find the US immigration system fundamentally fair today if this was retried. Probably not; Trump has been far more aggressive this time around and is sending people to forever prisons in El Salvador.

        The gender based part would be one of the cases you mentioned that’s still ongoing:

        Claims based on s. 15 are not secondary issues only to be reached after all other issues are considered. The Charter should not be treated as if it establishes a hierarchy of rights in which s. 15 occupies a lower tier.