The Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA), signed between Canada and the United States and brought into force in 2004, has recently begun to be enforced more rigorously. In the first eight months of 2025, Canadian border authorities returned 3,282 people to the United States in accordance with the agreement. This number shows a significant increase compared to the 2,481 people who were sent back during the same period in 2024. In July 2025, with 789 people deported, it became the highest monthly figure in the last ten years.[i] The agreement has been implemented more comprehensively at both irregular crossing points and land border crossings, and it was expanded in 2023. This expansion made the process of asylum application more complex and riskier.
According to this agreement, asylum seekers who cross the Canada–U.S. border are required to apply for asylum in the first country they enter. Accordingly, people reaching Canada through the United States, except under specific exemptions, are barred from lodging an asylum claim in Canada and are subject to return. However, the exceptions stipulated in legal provisions play a significant role. Exempt categories include people with family members in Canada, stateless individuals, unaccompanied minors, and those facing the risk of serious human rights violations, such as the death penalty. In practice, the interpretation of these exceptions has sparked debate. There are instances where people whose families live in Canada, as proven by DNA tests, are refused entry. This situation demonstrates that legal safeguards are weak in practice.
The recent rise in deportation figures has brought new challenges in terms of human rights. Some of the individuals returned to the United States have faced the risk of being sent to third countries, as they were either not accepted by their own states or had their asylum claims rejected. Thus, Canada has had no control over the ultimate fate of these individuals. The principle of non-refoulement, a fundamental principle of international refugee law, bans all forms of removal to states where individuals may face persecution or torture. Nevertheless, the United States’ deportation practices concerning third countries have prompted criticism, alleging that Canada, albeit indirectly, is in breach of this obligation.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights to life, liberty, and security of the person. The Supreme Court, in 2023, held that the STCA was not in breach of these rights.[ii] Nonetheless, objections relating to the clause on the principle of equality remain pending before the courts. Non-governmental organizations and migrant rights advocates have argued that the practice leads to discrimination, particularly against stateless persons and vulnerable groups, and have therefore claimed a violation of the principle of equality.
The Canadian government has formally defended the rising number of returns by citing “the effectiveness of migration management” and “maintaining border order.” Government officials state that border policy should be applied more strictly, as the growing number of applications places a burden on public services and the housing market. This rhetoric appears to provide political support to some states with increasing anti-immigration tendencies. But human rights advocates claim this policy conflicts with Canada’s global standing in terms of refugee protection.
At both the regional and international levels, these developments stand out. Canada’s return of asylum seekers under its bilateral agreement with the United States has become increasingly controversial with the rise of the wave of migration coming from Latin America. The United States has sped up its deportation rules, which means people who are sent back might end up in other countries besides their home nation. This situation has led to interpretations that Canada is, in fact, indirectly acting in violation of the principle of non-refoulement. Once individuals are transferred to the United States, Canada retains no authority over their ultimate country of destination.
The right to asylum is safeguarded under the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol. These instruments strictly prohibit the return of asylum seekers to countries where they would face persecution or where such a risk exists. As a state party to these international obligations, Canada has been considered responsible for exercising greater caution in the return of individuals at high risk of deportation to third countries. Recently, there have been concerns that Canada is not giving enough focus to these responsibilities.
In domestic politics, the subject has created a sharp division. Opposition parties have claimed that the policy of returning asylum seekers lacks a legal basis and damages Canada’s image as a “country that upholds human rights.” Migrant rights organizations say that sending people back, even if they have family here, might cause a major humanitarian problem. On the other hand, some pro-government circles have argued that the growing migration pressure undermines border security and places excessive strain on social services.
All these developments might lead to important outcomes in terms of Canada’s migration policies. If the implementation continues as it is, it may harm Canada’s trustworthy image in the international community. The inability to stop the risk of being sent back to another country might make people question Canada’s support for refugee laws. It has been emphasized that, for a more transparent and humane process, the criteria for exceptions should be clearly defined, legal representation should be strengthened, and independent monitoring mechanisms should be established.
In Canada, public opposition to the implementation has grown markedly in recent months, as human rights organizations and refugee advocates have launched campaigns. Protests in major cities have called on the government to expand exemptions under the STCA. At panels organized by universities and law associations, it was emphasized that the detention conditions experienced by returnees and the risk of deportation to third countries are incompatible with Canada’s traditional image of “refugee protection.” These civil society efforts resonated deeply and have begun to create political pressure on the government. The criticism raised by different segments of society serves as a strong warning to decision-makers.
Consequently, Canada’s deportation practices stemming from the Safe Third Country Agreement have sparked an intense debate, drawing attention to both the legal and humanitarian dimensions. Returnees face heightened risks of detention in the United States and potential transfer to third countries, a development that has raised concerns about possible breaches of the core principles of international refugee law. A more constructive step for Canada would be to design a balanced migration policy, respectful of human rights, that upholds both national and international obligations. This process is seen as critical for the country’s longstanding reputation in refugee protection.
[i] Paperny, Anna Mehler. “Canada Turns Back More Asylum-Seekers to US Despite Third-Country Deportation Risk.” Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canada-turns-back-more-asylum-seekers-us-despite-third-country-deportation-risk-2025-09-18/, (Date Accessed: 21.09.2025).
[ii] Ibid.
