this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2025

141 points (97.3% liked)

World News

47407 readers

2360 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

lemmyAtom@lemmy.world

141

‘Complicit with a totalitarian regime’: Canada’s border rules are landing asylum seekers in ICE detention (www.montrealgazette.com)

submitted 2 days ago by Arcanepotato@crazypeople.online to c/world@lemmy.world

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Canadian authorities have returned more than 1,600 asylum seekers to the United States in 2025 without hearing their case for refugee protection, according to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). Many have landed in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Alterforlett@lemmy.world 39 points 2 days ago (2 children)

The removals are a product of the longstanding Safe Third Country Agreement, which requires anyone seeking refugee protection in Canada or the U.S. to claim asylum in the first of the two countries they reach.

I understand why they've had that agreement. However, it should've been obvious for some time now that maybe that's an agreement they should bin? It's blatantly obvious the us don't treat refugees/asylum seekers the way they deserve at the moment

[–] AlexLost@lemm.ee 11 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Legislation takes time to change when you don't ha e a king passing edicts from the throne.

[–] Alterforlett@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

That is true

[+] propitiouspanda@lemmy.cafe 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (2 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] garbagebagel@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

They're actually trying to make it even harder for migrants and refugees with the introduction of Bill C-2, while pandering to the US.

Anandasangaree said Tuesday that Bill C-2 was drafted to contain "elements that will strengthen the relationship" between Canada and the U.S.

"There are a number of items in the bill that have been irritants for the U.S. so we are addressing some of those issues," he said. "But it's not exclusively about the United States." CBC

It's a bill to not only make seeking refugee status more difficult, but also remove privacy protections for all canadians.

During a technical briefing for reporters, a senior government official said that the changes were meant to improve police and intelligence agencies’ ability to apply for warrants to collect digital evidence following a series of court rulings that significantly hampered it. Article content

It would also increase the Canada Border Services Agency’s (CBSA) ability to search containers exiting the country by obligating transporters and warehouse operators to provide site access to border agents for export inspections. National post (I know...)

There's lots of migrants rights groups speaking out against the bill: e.g. Migrants Rights Network

[–] Arcanepotato@crazypeople.online 4 points 1 day ago

Oh, they are very aware. The STCA has been before the courts a few times. You can read about it here: https://ccrweb.ca/en/safe-third-country

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Yep. Politicians and the kind of people that hang out with politicians seem to be behind the curve on understanding what's happening, but even they must know this by now. The trick is that rolling it back could provoke Trump, and they're trying to keep that to a minimum at the moment.

That being said, if Carney doesn't fix the rules within the next year I'm going to be very disappointed. The courts will probably strike it down eventually regardless.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

going to be very disappointed

What's that look like? We don't vote Red because we like all the policies, but because the only alternative capable of pulling even a minority would be Trump levels of disastrous for us all.

So, would "disappointment" just be a harder grimace while continuing to vote to block the blue?

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I'm actually in a safe riding, on top of it all. I do activism as well, but it's a drop in the bucket. The sweet, sweet taste of powerlessness...

Oh well. In a world of 8 billion it's only fair.

[–] Arcanepotato@crazypeople.online 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Folks have been suing the gov about the Safe Third a country agreement since 2005 - opposition isn't new. And yes, the courts did strike it down but the gov appealed, and it's still under review.

The govs website about the agreement even includes a section on why the US is considered a safe country.

I think assuming they are 'behind the curve' is ... generous.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I mean, in 2005 the US was a lot closer to Canada on multiple fronts when it comes to human rights. I'm kind of surprised that the court sided with the challengers - and not at all surprised the decision was successfully appealed in 2009, which you probably should mention.

[–] Arcanepotato@crazypeople.online 1 points 23 hours ago

It was successfully appealed in 2008, if we're being picky.

The appeal was based in the fact that the judge found that the basis upon which a regulation was made (i.e. the position that the states is a safe country) does not have to be absolutely correct, so long as the gov considered if it might be true.

(See: https://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/36041/index.do)

[57] Understanding precisely what is in issue in a judicial review application is important when it comes time to determine the standard of review as well as the scope of the review that can be conducted by the Court. An attack aimed at the vires of a regulation involves the narrow question of whether the conditions precedent set out by Parliament for the exercise of the delegated authority are present at the time of the promulgation, an issue that invariably calls for a standard of correctness.

...

[60] Despite this language, the matter raised by the application is a pure vires issue (see the relevant part of the application for judicial review quoted at paragraph 15 above).

...

[78] Subsection 101(2) does not refer to “actual” compliance or compliance “in absolute terms” nor does it otherwise specify the type and extent of compliance contemplated. However, Parliament has specified the four factors to be considered in determining whether a country can be designated. These factors are general in nature and are indicative of Parliament’s intent that the matter of compliance be assessed on the basis of an appreciation by the GIC of the country’s policies, practices and human rights record. Once it is accepted, as it must be in this case, that the GIC has given due consideration to these four factors, and formed the opinion that the candidate country is compliant with the relevant Articles of the Conventions, there is nothing left to be reviewed judicially. I stress that there is no suggestion in this case that the GIC acted in bad faith or for an improper purpose.

I mentioned it was challenged back then to demonstrate that it's been known to be problematic since the beginning.

If we want to follow along with the details there have been further challenges, started in 2017, which were on the basis that it violated the charter. The courts agreed in 2020, but again it was appealed and the court gave it's ruling in 2023: https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/19957/index.do

I remember watching Trudeau respond to this in 2020, when he was doing his daily appearances from the governor generals cottage.

I'm not trying to shame anyone for not knowing, I get that there is a lot going on in the world and people are struggling in an individual basis too. But it really shocks me when are surprised that it's not all sunshine and rainbows and open arms. I actually learned about it in 2017, when the PM was on TV saying canada would welcome people. Not if they are being deported from the US, I guess 🤷🏻‍♀️