Our Editorial on Roxham Road1 elicited a large number of questions from readers. Here we answer some of them.
Posted yesterday at 11:00 a.m.
Of all the asylum seekers who pass through Roxham Road, how many are admitted? How many are deported to their country of origin or the United States?
Anne-Marie Ethier
Asylum seekers arriving in Canada via Roxham Road first pass a biometric test and security screening.
People who have already filed such a request in the United States, or those who have committed serious crimes, war crimes or terrorism, for example, can thus be declared ineligible to file an asylum application.
We have not been able to obtain statistics on the number of people who are ineligible to apply for asylum, but it is clear that this is a small proportion.
Those who are eligible can then apply for asylum. Canada then determines whether the applicant should be considered a refugee or a “person in need of protection” within the meaning of the 1951 United Nations Convention. We assess his risk of being persecuted in his country of origin because of his race, his religion, his political opinions or his sexual orientation, for example.
When he demanded the closure of Roxham Road by the federal government, ten days ago, Prime Minister François Legault affirmed that the “majority” of the migrants who crossed Roxham Road “were not really refugees and ended up being “returned home”.
That’s not what the statistics show. From February 2017 to December 2021, among the asylum applications submitted by people who crossed the border irregularly, 25,799 were accepted, compared to 18,008 who were refused. The proportion is roughly the same for the most recent requests: 62% of those studied between October and December 2021 were accepted.
When an application is refused, the person is not returned to the United States, but to the country of their citizenship, unless Canada has suspended removals to that country because of a humanitarian crisis or an armed conflict. This is the case, for example, for Ukraine, Iraq, Syria and Haiti. In this case, the person remains in Canada until they can be sent to their country. In the meantime, she can apply for a work or study permit.
I have never understood, and no one has ever really explained, why the federal government cannot simply unilaterally change the rules for receiving asylum seekers at customs posts on Canadian territory.
Marcel Marquis
It is indeed far from simple. In 2004, Canada and the United States signed the Safe Third Country Agreement, which stipulates that a refugee claimant must make their claim in the first country they arrive between Canada and the United States.
Asylum seekers who present themselves at a Canadian border post are thus automatically turned back to the United States. That’s why they enter through irregular routes like Roxham Road.
When an asylum seeker thus succeeds in reaching Canadian soil by an irregular route, Canada has obligations towards him and cannot send him back to the United States.
“Asylum seekers are a vulnerable group and Canada has national and international obligations under the Refugee Convention,” said Aidan Strickland, spokesperson at Immigration Canada.
Canada could choose to let migrants in through fields and woods and then process their application under its obligations. But this option entails significant dangers for migrants and complicates the work of the authorities. Rather than playing cat and mouse, a semi-formal route that makes things easier for everyone has ended up being established at Roxham Road.
How is it that the flow of migrants has only one direction, that is to say from the United States to Canada?
Serge Roy
First, some migrants take the opposite route. On January 27, an Indian family of four froze to death in Manitoba while trying to cross illegally into the United States. But it is true that the flow is greater from south to north.
The Department of Immigration did not want to come forward on the reasons for this. Stéphanie Valois, president of the Quebec Association of Immigration Lawyers, believes that the causes are multiple. First, there is the fact that the United States has a border with Mexico and therefore a link with Latin America. Canada has no land border with any country other than the United States. Migrants therefore pass through the United States to go north, while no one arrives in Canada by road to go south.
Another reason is temporary visas. “It’s very difficult to get a Canadian visa and easier to get the American visa, either because the United States has more embassies and more flexible criteria for obtaining temporary visas,” says Mand Valois. This causes more migrants to reach the United States first, which is why the flow originated there.
We also know that the treatment of migrants is different in the United States. They are often detained, and under the Trump administration children have been separated from their parents. This could and still can encourage migrants to want to live in Canada.
In 2017, following a decision by Donald Trump to bar citizens of seven countries from entering the United States, Justin Trudeau posted a message on Twitter that read: “To those fleeing persecution, terror and war, know that Canada will welcome you…”
His invitation was so well received that he then had to temper this message.
What happened when the road was closed during the pandemic? Why reopen it now?
Gilles Bisaillon
It is true that it is extremely curious to hear that Roxham Road, an irregular road, was “closed” in March 2020, then “reopened” on November 21st. Let’s try to see it clearly. During the pandemic, the Canada-US border was practically closed for health reasons. Ottawa then reached an agreement with Washington so that migrants trying to enter Canada would be picked up by the United States. Remember that this is not the case in normal times.
This does not mean that Roxham Road was completely “closed” during this period. Unaccompanied minors, for example, continued to pass. Others simply entered through other paths. A few hundred applications per quarter from irregular entries were received during the “closed” period.
Why did you then “reopen” the path?
“The ban was based on a public health imperative because of the global situation and [intérieure] of COVID-19, and therefore was always supposed to be temporary, answers Ottawa. Following the evolution of the health situation and in consideration of our international obligations regarding asylum seekers, this measure had to be lifted last fall, when the Government of Canada began to accept a large number of international travelers to the country. »