Filipiniana News - February 2017
Rhyme
and Reason
US
Travel Ban, STCA and the ETA
As Canada's
closest neighbour, a lot of what is happening in the United States can have a
significant impact on our country. This
is especially true in the area of immigration law and policy owing to our
shared physical borders and a common official language.
Thus, when the new
US President Donald Trump issued his extremely controversial and
highly-questionable executive order suspending the entry of citizens of seven
predominantly Muslim countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and
Yemen) to the US for 90 days and the entry of all refugees for 120 days (with
an indefinite ban for Syrian refugees), widespread protests ensued not just in
the US but all throughout Canada as well.
The resulting
chaos has temporarily subsided after a US judge issued a restraining order
against the implementation of the executive order pending the adjudication of
its constitutionality. An appeals court
upheld the restraining order, while the legal team of President Trump continues
to explore the possibility of raising the matter to the Supreme Court or
issuing a "brand new" executive order that will be less vulnerable to
legal and constitutional challenge.
Among others, the
current socio-political and legal climate in the US puts into question the
continuing relevance and legitimacy of the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA)
between Canada and the U.S. which
requires prospective refugee claimants
to seek protection from the country where they first arrived (US or Canada),
with very few exceptions allowed.
With the attempted
imposition of a travel ban, Canada has become a much safer destination for
potential refugees who face a genuine risk of persecution in their home countries
but who fear that the growing anti-refugee rhetoric in the US will lead to
their deportation to the very same countries that they fled. Hence there is currently a strong clamor
from Canadian advocates for the government to cancel or at least suspend the
STCA to allow Canada to admit the refugees affected by the travel ban, and to
provide a safe haven for those whose lives are genuinely at risk if sent back
to their home countries.
Since the
Philippines is not a significant source of refugees, it is rare for Filipinos
in Canada to be active participants in advocating for the rights and welfare of
refugees. There appears to be an even
stronger sentiment in favor of misguided "anti-terrorist" efforts
which tend to feed "anti-muslim" biases and other types of
prejudice.
In this regard, I
have sometimes heard comments along the lines of: "why are they
prioritizing refugees over the families of live-in caregivers who have been
waiting for many years to be reunited in Canada?" While these may just be voices of frustration
over the long delays in the processing of LCP permanent residence applications,
we must be very careful not to use this as an excuse to be indifferent towards
the plight of refugees or in supporting the unfair rhetoric being propagated
against them.
We need to be
reminded that refugees are literally fleeing for their lives. If given the choice, many of them would
rather stay in their home countries rather than try to learn new systems,
language and culture and "start from the very bottom" in another, as
a Syrian refugee once put it.
Economic migrants
such as caregivers on the other hand, voluntarily left their home countries to
seek better opportunities. Unlike
refugees, it is not a literal choice between life and death that led economic
migrants to leave their home countries.
Lest I be misunderstood, I am not minimizing the possible deadly impact
of economic want, especially for the poorest of the poor. But there are far more effective ways to deal
with these problems that do not involve pitting the interests of one group
against another.
The recent turn of
events in the US provides us with a vital opportunity to express concern
for, and solidarity with, other
vulnerable sectors and individuals.
After all, an injustice committed against a particular group of people
is an injustice committed against us all.
If we will remain silent and allow the propagation of unjust and
inhumane government policies, it will not be long before we will find ourselves
at the receiving end of similar forms of injustice.
Clarifying the Electronic Travel Authorization (ETA) Requirement
Lately, I have been
getting a number of queries relating to the ETA requirement from
Philippine-passport holders. It seems
that there is still a lot of confusion and misinformation surrounding this
recent immigration requirement. Thus, it
might help to provide a bit of refresher and clarification on the ETA once
again.
The ETA requirement
was introduced in August 2015 and
strictly implemented starting 10 November 2016. This meant that all visa-exempt nationals
who wish to travel to Canada need to obtain ETAs online (which costs $7 per
person) before they can be allowed entry to Canada.
Since the
Philippines is not a visa-exempt country, ETAs cannot be issued to Philippine
passport-holders (or to dual
Canadian/Philippine citizens who wish to travel to Canada using their Philippine passports). Philippine citizens who are not permanent
residents or citizens of Canada will need to apply for and obtain the
applicable visas prior to entering Canada.
All Canadian
citizens (including dual citizens), must always travel to and from Canada with
valid Canadian passports.
As always, the
above are meant for information purposes only and not as specific legal
advice.
The author is an immigration lawyer in Canada and may be reached at deanna@santoslaw.ca or tel. no. 416-901-8497.
Comments
Post a Comment