Nevertheless, the Trudeau government has decided to appeal the decision to maintain an untenable agreement, at a time when the Trump administration`s racist and nativist policies make this all the more dangerous and illustrate the contradictions of refugee and immigration policy in Canada. This agreement meant that Canada should reject anyone arriving at an official U.S. place of entry and prevent them from applying for refugees in Canada, as the United States is considered a “safe country” to make such an application. However, the claimants discovered a “loophole” in the agreement, which meant that if they arrived between the official ports of entry, they could apply to Canada. Experts said the suspension of the agreement would have a huge impact on Canada-U.S. The relationship. Canada “continues to actively engage” with Washington in the refugee pact and ensures that the agreement reflects Canada`s commitment to its international obligations “while continuing to work on how we manage our shared border,” he added. McDonald suspended his decision for six months to give Parliament a chance to respond. The agreement is maintained during this period. The debate on the third-country security agreement has for some time become a lightning rod for racist and xenophobic rhetoric. The former Federal Conservative immigration critic urged the Liberal government to close the “gap” and extend the pact across the border. “People who come from a safe country and do not directly flee persecution should not be able to ignore our laws and enter Canada illegally,” Rempel wrote.
“If they do, they should be overwhelmed.” Conventions on safe third-country nationals are not explicitly mentioned in the 1951 Refugee Convention or the 1967 Protocol on the Status of Refugees. Rather, their legitimacy derives from Article 31 of the 1951 Convention, which states that a refugee should not be punished for illegal entry into a country if he arrives directly from a country where he is threatened. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has itself warned against over-interpreting safe third country agreements, although it acknowledges that they may be acceptable in certain circumstances.  Such ambiguities have prompted some Canadian legal experts to question the legality of the Canada-U.S. safe third country agreement.  Subsequently, the number of refugees arriving at the border decreased. In addition, under “temporary agreements” between the United States and Canada, refugee claimants entering official country ports, aviation and seaports should be returned to the United States. Meanwhile, the Safe Third Country Agreement remains in force, while the federal government is appealing the Federal Court of Justice`s decision, although Amnesty International and others have called for the agreement to be suspended immediately.