However, the “jurisdictional stripping” law was not intended to prevent federal courts from challenging the original classification of Mexico or Guatemala as a “safe third country.” Lawyers can begin to develop strategies on legal, constitutional and administrative procedural laws in anticipation of a possible agreement with Mexico or Guatemala. Congress can also monitor the Trump administration`s attempts to use safe third country agreements to block asylum seekers. Agreement with Honduras: In a series of agreements with the Honduran government, the Trump administration has sought to curb migration from the region to the United States. In an agreement similar to those signed by the governments of Guatemala and El Salvador, the United States could return asylum seekers to Honduras if they cross the country without first seeking asylum. The Trump administration on Wednesday began deporting migrants seeking protection at the southern border to Guatemala, the first migrants returned under a series of deals negotiated earlier this year that make it nearly impossible for Central Americans to seek asylum in the United States. SARAH PIERCE: So there`s not a single agency that has to make that decision. There is not much international infrastructure to complain about the security of a country when it is not really safe. We have an International Court of Justice. But I don`t know which country would have the right to oppose an agreement between the United States and Mexico in this regard. And I don`t know which country would do that. Agreements with Central American countries tactically move the U.S. border further south.
Under the Trump administration, the Department of Homeland Security has pressured the governments of Central American countries to sign agreements to prevent migrants from traveling north of the U.S.-Mexico border. In the past, two countries have negotiated agreements on “safe third countries” to better manage the flow of refugee and asylum claims at their borders. This agreement is signed on the assumption that both countries can offer asylum to people in need. This is not the case in the Trump administration`s agreements with Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. But even this agreement was not immune to criticism. Canadian lawyers filed a lawsuit against the deal in July 2017, arguing that the Trump administration`s policies had made the United States dangerous for asylum seekers. The ongoing lawsuit alleges that asylum seekers in the United States are “unjustly detained” and risk being forcibly returned to countries where they could be persecuted, tortured and killed. The Trump administration has made several threats against countries, forcing them to sign these agreements. Guatemala signed an agreement on a “safe third country” after the government threatened it with tariffs, a travel ban and a tax on remittances.
Before the “Stay in Mexico” program began, the government threatened to impose tariffs on all Mexican products. These agreements have done little to improve the efficiency of asylum procedures. In Greece, cases handled under the EU-Turkey deal have proven to be highly likely to be challenged due to concerns about the individual vulnerability of applicants and the effectiveness of the Turkish asylum system, which could put refugees at risk of being rejected in violation of EU and international asylum law. These appeals quickly overwhelmed the Greek judicial system, further slowed down all renditions and used the capacity to process other asylum claims. The Dublin Regulation has also been challenged because of asylum conditions in Greece and Italy. Mexico`s dubious state and Guatemala`s asylum system could undoubtedly expose these agreements to similar challenges in U.S. courts. However, the agreements the U.S. is seeking in Central America are not comparable to those it has with Canada — neither in intent nor in development, Ojeda said. Trump, meanwhile, sought to further restrict asylum by enacting a rule in July that deprives anyone at the southern border who has traveled through another country to get to the United States will be eligible for asylum. There are limited exceptions to the rule, but for the most part, it effectively closes the door to asylum claims at the southern border.
The Attorney General`s conclusion on the validity of designating a country as “safe” should be considered by the federal courts. However, the restriction of judicial review provisions added to the Immigration Act under the Clinton administration effectively prevents individual asylum seekers from negotiating the issue, stating that “no court has the power to review a decision of the attorney general” under the safe third country exemption. A number of practical obstacles prevented transfers. First, these rules are based on the fact that it can be shown that an asylum seeker has crossed the safe country. At official entry points between two countries, this can be relatively easy, as border guards can visually confirm the previous presence of an asylum seeker in the third country. Where transit takes place between points of entry or where the safe third country does not share a land border with the intended country of asylum, further proof of transit shall be required. The agreement between the United States and Canada, for example, was limited to official ports of entry because there was a need for evidence, in this case visual confirmation, of how refugee claimants entered Canada. Given the increase in the number of people moving between ports of entry and then claiming asylum, Canada requested an extension of the agreement on the grounds that the current information-sharing protocols between the two countries would allow Canadian asylum authorities to access U.S. biometric data (e.g.B. visa applications) that could confirm a refugee claimant`s previous presence in the United States. Asylum seekers are required to submit their application in the country they enter, which is a party to the Safe Third Country Agreement. If they do not, the other countries in the agreement can reject their applications and send them back to that country.
The only existing U.S. agreement on safe third countries is with Canada. The agreement, developed in cooperation with international human rights organizations and signed in 2002, recognizes that the United States and Canada have strong procedures under which asylum seekers can seek protection and have a strong tradition of welcoming asylum seekers. The administration is pushing for several new safe third country deals: critics say Trump`s proposed deals would not meet those standards. They argue that Guatemala and Mexico do not have the resources to process so many asylum claims, pointing to State Department warnings that asylum seekers in both countries are at risk of violence. Many also say that such agreements do not address the causes that drive people to flee and can only encourage them to find different routes to the United States. “Stay in Mexico” policy: Instead of a safe third country agreement with Mexico, the Trump administration has been implementing its “stay in Mexico” policy since January 2019. This policy requires Central Americans seeking asylum to return to Mexico indefinitely while their claims are processed. The “Remain in Mexico” policy is a clear violation of U.S. and international law, but the Supreme Court has allowed it to continue while its validity is challenged in court. Although the U.S.
has not signed an explicit agreement with Mexico, DHS has confirmed that Mexican asylum seekers will also be among those affected by agreements with other countries. Due to COVID-19, the United States temporarily suspended the deportation of non-Guatemalan asylum seekers to Guatemala as part of its “Safe Third Country Agreement” with the country, which came after reports revealed that the United States had deported dozens of infected migrants to Guatemala. The United States continues its regular deportation flights to Guatemala. The agreements would effectively make it impossible for migrants to seek safety in the United States. Southern border – and endanger the lives of thousands of people fleeing violence and poverty in the Northern Triangle region (El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala) and other countries. Safe third country agreements are part of the arsenal that nation-states use to prevent the arrival of asylum seekers on their territory where national legal rights and obligations would be respected. This arsenal also includes bans on the high seas, offshore detention centers, border fortifications that force migrants to travel to dangerous terrain, payment from neighboring states to hold back refugee flows, and the Trump administration`s policy of “staying in Mexico.” Morgan, CBP`s acting commissioner, said safe third-country agreements with Central American countries are in the best interests of asylum seekers. .