Rete

And if they were in the US legally and committed that offense would they not also be taken to jail and separated from their children? Why is it different because they decided to commit this crime with their children in tow.

DigitalGhost

With all due respect, that list is bollocks. It doesn't even include Northern Ireland or South Korea.
​​​​​

beckiwoo

magnumpi

Almost Canadian

Sorry. What is that list supposed to represent in world terms?

bats

Former Lancastrian

There are only 2 signatories to the Safe Third Country Act and they are Canada and the USA and that is the only one that matters for refugee claimants between Canada and the USA.
Now we have Designated Countries of Origin whereby the likelihood of a person from one of those countries being granted refugee protection in Canada are slim to none.

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration...es-policy.html

As far as I am concerned the US is a safe country so if they make a claim at a port of entry and not exempt from the STCA then they will be returned to the USA regardless of whatever they are a citizen of.

dave_j

Irrespective of the rights or wrongs of the policy, the media spotlight has well and truly swung to target this issue as a whole and stones that might otherwise have been left unturned are now being sought out... One welcome result to have arisen by the unforeseen consequences of such policy. It is sweeping aside some of the curtains that wilfully hide the less humane aspects of juvenile care.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4288105/i...inement-court/

bats

DigitalGhost

But it's all irrelevant in this case because the US considers both Mexico and Canada to be safe countries. Canada's list also includes Mexico otherwise Canada wouldn't have re-introduced visa free travel for Mexican citizens a couple of years ago.

Therefore it is still nearly impossible to reach the US land border without crossing through a safe country en route.

Siouxie

But the US don't currently classify Mexico as a Safe Country..

https://www.macleans.ca/news/world/t...-for-refugees/

DigitalGhost

That's not the same thing is it? That looks like Trump wants to tie Mexico into the STC agreement that is currently bilateral between the US and Canada. Doing so could actually benefit Canada in the long term as well.
​​​​​​

Oakvillian

No, not usually. Irregular border crossing is a misdemeanour offence, and would typically result in either releasing suspects into the care of a relative, or holding them in an ICE facility pending a hearing. Some ICE facilities are equipped to handle families in detention. You wouldn't expect somebody charged with a misdemeanour within the US to be held in custody, would you? Otherwise the prisons would be full of people who'd been issued with a speeding ticket, and the orphanages would be full of the children of serial jay-walkers.

What this now-rescinded policy directive did was to treat all irregular border crossers under a provision in 8USC 3125 as though they were suspected of more serious criminal activity within the US, or of being serial border crossers. This provided the (lame) excuse to hold adults in federal prison, which cannot accommodate children; therefore the children were removed and detained separately (or lost, or trafficked, or whatever happened to some of those still unaccounted for).

What was made absolutely clear by Trump's latest executive order theatre is that he deliberately created this mess, with the assistance of Sessions; that is why he was able also to stop it (despite all the bleatings about "the Democrats have to change their law" - that doesn't even make sense) by issuing yet another EO.

Siouxie

Yes, it is the same thing.

Presently, Mexico is not classed as a Safe Country for Refugees. So refugees from Guatemala and other S.America countries can not seek refuge there and must travel onwards to the US.

bats