The Importance Of Refugees In Canada

Towards the asylum seekers who are illegally crossing the border into Canada due to fear from recent changes to the US immigration policy, Canada should lift the Safe Third World Agreement with the US and lift the cap on the number of privately sponsored refugees allowed in. Doing so would eliminate the need for illegal crossings because the Agreement prevents these asylum seekers from requesting refugee status at official borders and would allow for more people to seek refuge in Canada. Canada is morally obligated to do so based on Peter Singer’s theory on our duty to provide aid and on Thomas Pogge’s causation and responsibility model.

There are increasing amounts of people coming from the US hoping to get a refugee status granted to them

in Canada, since they are, or will be unable to, successfully receive one from the US ("Asylum-seekers flee US border patrol", 2017). The reason being President Donald Trump’s recent immigration ban has been causing some difficulties for many in the US. The ban currently targets people from seven different Muslim countries with visa suspensions and revocations ("Trump's executive order", 2017). However, there is not much asylum seekers can do, with regards to them coming to Canada, due to the Safe Third Country Agreement.
The "Safe Third Country Agreement" is an agreement signed between the US and Canada as an effort to “better manage access to the refugee system in each country” (Government of Canada, 2016) when crossing land borders. Since 2004, when the agreement came into effect, until today, the US is the only country designated by Canada as a safe third country (Government of Canada, 2016). However, this agreement forces all asylum seekers to apply in the country they first landed. Which means those who landed in the US and were rejected cannot then apply for status in Canada at official Canadian land border crossings, by train, or at airports (Government of Canada, 2016). But, if these people make it into Canada without facing these crossings, they force Canada into having to give them a chance to request. This policy is now problematic as there are many who want to leave the US and seek refugee status in Canada and it is forcing these people to illegally walk across the border into Canada where the Agreement would not apply.
The only option is to escape into Canada because the denial of asylum request in the US means deportation and asylum seekers do not see going back to their country of origin as an option (Kassam, A., 2017b). They escaped there in the first place for the sake of their lives. Now, in the US, due to the uncertain political climate, they are once again fleeing for their lives. Canada, being the neighbouring country, and the country with a more open policy towards refugees, is the place to go. In desperation, people are choosing to walk into Canada through waist-deep snow, risking frostbites and amputation of their fingers (Kassam, A., 2017b). There are families with young children who are trying to carry multiple suitcases of all their belongings looking to just be on Canadian soil where the agreement does not apply anymore; and once they have reached Canada, despite being disoriented and cold, they are given another shot at settlement (Kassam, A., 2017a).
Despite this entire situation, the Canadian government still has intentions to uphold the agreement. It is evident that people are afraid that they might be put in detention, get deported, or have their applications denied (Kassam, A., 2017b). Overall, the people are in fear of what will happen to them if they remained in the US. Canada must recognize that the US is no longer a safe country for refugees and should no longer stand by the agreement. It was an agreement that was signed back when the US was a safe place for refugees, but it is no longer. The longer the Canadian government holds up with this agreement, the riskier it is for the asylum seekers. It increases the risk of smugglers and human trafficking. We are concerned here with the safety of human beings who have already suffered enough and should no longer have to fear for their lives. However, the Canadian government holds that the agreement “remains an important tool for Canada and the US to work together on the orderly handling of refugee claims made in our countries” (Kassam, A., 2017b).
Canada should do no longer stand by the Safe Third Country Agreement and should have more policies geared towards welcoming refugees in. If it were not for this agreement, people would be able to request and apply at borders for refugee status, instead of having to walk across into Canada first. Though we are not directly responsible for Trump's travel ban and for the political instability in the refugees' country of origin, we are responsible for causing them to have to face the risks and dangers of walking across the border. Thus, according to Pogge (2002), we are responsible for rectifying a harm that we have caused. We, as in the citizens of Canada, all have a collective responsibility in the signing of this agreement because, as Pogge (2002) says, although the agreement was created and signed by our leaders, we chose our leaders through a democratic process; therefore, we are to be held responsible for its effects.
Furthermore, Canada has moral obligations to let these refugees in, as an affluent country of the West.

As Singer says, "if we can help without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we ought to help” (1972); therefore, it is quite evident that we are in the position to help, as letting in more refugees will not lead to us sacrificing anything comparable to what the refugees are facing. Overall, Canada as a country is quite wealthy and is capable of supporting more people. Although we may be at different levels of wealth, overall, we are quite privileged. We also have an obligation to refugees because these people are not normal immigrants. These people are seeking a safe place to settle, as they have no other choice but to turn to other countries for protection. If they had the choice, they would not want to leave, whereas, normal immigrants are coming into Canada voluntarily (Parekh, S.,

2016).
On the other hand, some would argue that letting in large numbers of refugees does lead to sacrificing something of moral importance. That is, our national culture is sacrificed; we are surrendering our right to associate with whomever we wish and only those we wish; and our right to exclude people from our country because it is our country and not theirs (Fine, S., 2013). However, lifting the agreement and allowing asylum seekers to apply at official borders will not threaten our culture. Cultures change over time regardless of whether people are let in or not (Fine, S., 2013). Furthermore, enabling application does not guarantee everyone is allowed to stay. Moreover, when we consider the freedom to associate with whom we wish, we do not have total freedom in this area. We are "forced" to associate with people we may not want to at public schools, at the gym, etc. Lastly, we do not have the right to exclude people from our country because the rights of the people we choose outweigh it, especially when it is their right to life and safety (Fine, S., 2013).
The Canadian government has yet to properly address the problem of people entering into Canada at remote locations seeking a refugee status. There is urgency for our government to address this issue and there are demands that we stop the illegal entrance of refugees (Kassam, A., 2017a). Some Canadians are urging the government to put a stop to these sorts of migration because, not only is it not safe for the people who are running across, it is also not safe for the communities of which the people are running into (Kassam, A., 2017a). As generous and accepting Canada is, we still “need to ensure that the integrity of our borders is protected and that we look after our national security” (Kassam, A., 2017a). There is a constant need to who is coming in and why there are doing so (Kassam, A., 2017a).
President Donald Trump says that the ban instated is not about singling out Muslims ("Trump's executive order", 2017), as there are many other Muslim countries who are not affected by the ban, rather, it is about "terror and keeping our country safe" ("Trump's executive order", 2017). There was a need for such an urgent ban because time is needed "to develop a stricter vetting system and ensure that visas were not issued to individuals posing a national security threat" ("Trump's executive order", 2017). Now, if the US felt that these are people who pose as a threat to national security, what makes it safe for Canada to open its doors to these people? Of course, there is no guarantee that Trump is right on this ban; but, regardless, Canada can maintain its policies regarding refugees for the reason of security as well.
The agreement hinges on the idea that the US is a safe country for refugees, which is an assumption that clashes with the reality of Trump’s actions (Kassam, A., 2017a). The reality of the US is that it has become “a country that has declared that you’re banned, that you’re not welcome and [you are not wanted]” (Kassam, A., 2017a) and this is all because of where you came from, of your race, and of your religion. Truly, “it is a fictitious reality to continue to pretend that the US is safe for refugees” (Kassam, A., 2017b).
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was created for the protection of refugees around the world and holds that states are obligated to and must give people who arrive and claim asylum a hearing before they can be deported and if it is determined that their fear is justified, they must be allowed to stay and gain membership in the society (Parekh, S., 2016).

The US is no longer following this obligation and therefore, should no longer be deemed as a safe place for refugees. What does this mean for Canada? We have a moral obligation to provide a safe place to refugees, especially because we are within reach, and are capable. There are innocent people in grave danger; if we can help, then we should (Singer, 1972). By fleeing their own country, refugees are essentially petitioning other states to address their right to protection (Blake, M., 2016). “Even if integration is a difficult process, that process seems morally obligatory, [especially] when the alternative is the literal destruction of human lives” (Blake, M., 2016). It is evident that the US is no longer fit to decide what is safeguarding them and what poses a threat to them, as it seems that they are unable realize they are the source of the threats posed towards these refugees who initially went to them looking for safety and are asking for

protection.
Lifting the Safe Third Country Agreement with the US and enabling more ways for people to seek refuge in Canada is something our government is morally obligated to do. Not doing so would lead increased migrants trying to walk across the borders into Canada causing safety concerns for the people walking as well as for those who reside in the area of which they enter. Furthermore, not doing so would be to follow in the footsteps of Donald Trump's decision to exclude people because of their race, their religion, or their country of origin. This is not something any Canadian would want to be guilty of and because there are innocent people who are constantly fleeing for their lives facing the risks and dangers that no human being should ever have to face, Canada should welcome them with open arms and open hearts. Not only should we want to do so, we are obligated to do so. In a way, we are responsible for the harms that this agreement with the US caused. Despite the fact that it is the US who became unsafe for refugees, continuing to stand by this agreement would make Canada just as guilty as the US. According to Pogge (2012), we are responsible for repairing the damage that our actions have created.