“The idea that the pandemic will be eliminated and that borders will be reopened in three months is certainly attractive. (But) It`s clearly a fantasy,” said immigration and refugee lawyer Andrew Brouwer. Julie Taub, an immigration and refugee lawyer, says the Canada Border Services Agency has lost capacity since the agreement was put in place in late 2004 and would be “overwhelmed” if the agreement was repealed.  One of the arguments put forward by the Canadian government in defending the agreement was that without the agreement, immigration would increase dramatically. But in the judgment, the judge noted that Canada has dealt with variable immigration figures in the past and that, given the flaw in the agreement, the agreement did not prevent asylum seekers from travelling to Canada anyway. The Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United States requires asylum seekers to seek protection from refugees in the first safe country they arrive in, with some exceptions. Many people have been rejected under the provision since it came into effect in 2004, with significant increases since 2016, when the Trump administration began targeting undocumented migrants in the states. IN DETAIL, existing information exchange agreements between them, including the Declaration of Mutual Exchange on Information Exchange between the Department of Citizenship and Immigration (CIC) and the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the U.S. Department of Foreign Affairs (DOS), from February 27, 2003 (the Declaration of Mutual Communication) and the Annex on the Exchange of Information on Asylum Claims and Refugee Status to the Declaration of Mutual Understanding between the Department and the Immigration Sharing Canada (CIC) and the Office of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS), the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), August 22, 2003 (Asylum Appendix); Human rights groups had initially challenged the Safe Third Country Agreement in 2005, on the grounds that it had lifted the rights of an anonymous asylum seeker in the United States, who feared deportation to Colombia, where the person would be prosecuted. The John Doe in this case never sought refuge in Canada, as the agreement of the third county would prohibit them from entering.
The challenge was ultimately dismissed by an appeals court. In addition to meeting the exemption criteria under the agreement, applicants must meet all other eligibility criteria for immigration legislation for the country in which they apply for status. Although refugees entering Canada at official border crossings are generally returned to the United States, they would not be returned if they crossed at locations between designated ports of entry; In this case, their demands will be heard and many immigration experts see it as a loophole within the agreement.   The agreement allowing each country to reject asylum seekers attempting to file refugee applications at official border crossings was declared unconstitutional by the Federal Court of Justice in July. Conventions on safe third-country nationals are not explicitly mentioned in the 1951 Refugee Convention or the 1967 Protocol on the Status of Refugees. Rather, their legitimacy derives from Article 31 of the 1951 Convention, which states that a refugee should not be punished for illegal entry into a country if he arrives directly from a country where he is threatened. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has itself warned against over-interpreting safe third country agreements, although it acknowledges that they may be acceptable in certain circumstances.  Such ambiguities have prompted some Canadian legal experts to question the legality of the Canada-U.S.
safe third country agreement.  McDonald gave the government until the end of January to prepare for the end of the agreement because it understood that it was in the public interest not to terminate the agreement immediately.