Armin Hohenadler

To date, the United States is the only safe third country. The safe third country agreements initiative with Mexico and Guatemala is part of the U.S.` well-published policy to restrict access to protection in the U.S. for adults and children fleeing Central America. For Mexico, the clock is ticking after Mexico agreed to sign a „Safe Third Country“ agreement, if it could not significantly reduce the number of Central American Americans arriving at the U.S. border, with assessments in two 45-day intervals, the first deadline on July 25, 2019. Agreements on safe third countries are not explicitly recognised in the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees or in the 1967 Protocol on the Status of Refugees mentioned. Instead, their legality derives from Article 31 of the 1951 Convention, which states that a refugee should not be punished for illegal entry into a country when arriving directly from a country where he or she was threatened. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has itself warned against overly broad an interpretation of safe third country agreements, but acknowledges that they may be acceptable in certain circumstances. [22] Such ambiguities have led some jurists in Canada to question the legality of the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement. [23] The Attorney General`s finding of the validity of deportation from a country as „safe“ should be reviewed in federal courts. However, the limitation of judicial review provisions, which were added to the Immigration Act during the Clinton administration, effectively prevents some asylum seekers from negotiating the case and states, „No court is responsible for verifying a decision of the Attorney General“ under the safe third country exception. The Trump administration`s search for safe third-country agreements with Mexico and Guatemala is at odds with both United States.

and international law on the protection of asylum-seekers. Members of Congress, interest representatives in Mexico, Guatemala and the United States – as well as asylum seekers themselves – know that neither country can offer legal protection or procedure to migrants. The question of whether the rule of law or cruel disregard for human life will prevail in this situation has not yet been decided. Ahmed Hussen, who was speaking for IRCC as a Canadian minister, said the conditions of the safe third country agreement remained met. Canada`s ruling Liberal Party has not communicated any plans or intentions to suspend the agreement. [21] McDonald`s gave the government until the end of January to prepare for the end of the deal because it acknowledged that it was in the public interest not to immediately denounce the agreement. . .

.