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. Under the agreement, individuals applying for refugee status must apply in the first country they arrive in, between the United States or Canada, unless they qualify for an exemption. For example, refugee claimants who are citizens of a country other than the United States and who arrive from the United States at the Canada-U.S. land border can only claim refugee protection in Canada if they complete an exemption under the Safe Third Country Agreement. Finally, as with any enforcement measure, safe third country agreements create new incentives that will inevitably shape the behaviour of those subject to them. In Europe, the Dublin Regulation has produced two perverse and unexpected results. First, applicants have a strong incentive to avoid finding and applying for asylum in the first country they arrive in, which has created a market for smuggling networks to expand their services deeper into Europe itself. Second, Dublin encouraged applicants to lose or destroy their documents or even try to damage their fingerprints to avoid documenting their route of entry.
This makes it difficult to carry out identity and security checks, which has profound implications for the integrity of the entire asylum system. It is conceivable that an agreement between the United States and Mexico could have a similar effect by increasing the complexity and sophistication of smuggling networks, with the aim of helping clients escape discovery along the way, expanding the smugglers` market, and increasing the dangers for migrants and asylum seekers themselves. Guatemala as a “safe third country”: The Trump administration has struck a “safe third country” agreement with Guatemala that would require asylum seekers traveling through Guatemala to the United States to first seek asylum in Guatemala. The Safe Third Country Agreement applies to refugee claimants who wish to enter Canada or the United States at land border crossings between Canada and the United States (including by rail). It also applies at airports if a person seeking refugee protection in country B has not been classified as a refugee in country A and is in transit through country A as part of his or her deportation. In November 2020, the Trump administration issued provisional final regulations to implement the agreements with Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. Since then, the United States has deported Honduran and Salvadoran asylum seekers to Guatemala and returned at least 1,000 adults and children to the country. Therefore, despite pressure from the Trump administration for Mexico and Guatemala to sign such agreements that bring these countries to the table with a combination of threats and promises of aid in the case of Guatemala, secure agreements with third countries are unlikely to be the key to resolving the crisis on the U.S. southern border. [6] Government Decree 191/2015 (VII.
21.) on the national list of safe countries of origin and safe third countries. The original list did not include Turkey, but the country was later added. The government is pushing for several new agreements on safe third countries: the Trump administration is methodically dismantling the United States. One of the most devastating changes the government has introduced is the negotiation of agreements with Central American countries that require asylum seekers traveling through a country to seek protection there first. Julie Taub, an immigration and refugee lawyer, says that since the agreement was launched in late 2004, the Canada Border Services Agency has lost its capacity and would be “overwhelmed” if the agreement were repealed. [23] 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. The Agreement does not apply to U.S.
citizens or ordinary residents of the United States who are not citizens of any country (“Stateless”). The former ILO issued inadmissibility decisions based on Serbia as a safe third country, also for vulnerable applicants, such as transgender people from Cuba, disabled or single women victims of sexual and gender-based violence. In one case, an extremely vulnerable single Cameroonian woman who was a victim of human trafficking in Serbia was taken hostage and raped several times. The HHC obtained an interim measure from the UN Human Rights Committee[10] and after her case was finally decided on the merits, the HRC ruled the case inadmissible as the complainant was no longer at risk of being returned to Serbia. Unfortunately, the Human Rights Committee did not take into account the fact that the complainant could only obtain protection in Hungary on the basis of the interim measure adopted and that there was therefore a clear violation of article 13 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – the right to an effective domestic remedy. Safe third country agreements are an integral part of asylum systems in other parts of the world. So far, the approach between EU Member States has been most widely applied through the Dublin Regulation, which transfers responsibility for processing asylum applications to the Member State into which an asylum seeker has entered. .