A dramatic shift is unfolding at Canada’s borders. The once-steady flow of asylum seekers crossing from upstate New York has slowed to a trickle, a stark contrast to the surges witnessed just months ago. This isn’t a natural ebb and flow; it’s a consequence of increasingly stringent enforcement and a growing sense of risk for those seeking refuge.
The change means a significantly higher chance of being turned back to the United States, potentially leading to detention by immigration authorities. This reversal is igniting a fierce debate within Canada, questioning whether a harder line on immigration is truly the right path.
The Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle crossing in Quebec, Canada’s busiest land entry point for asylum claims, saw a massive influx beginning shortly after 2017. Applications soared, increasing by 184% compared to the previous year, peaking at over 1,900 per month between March and August.
But the tide has turned. November saw only 518 asylum requests at that location – the first year-over-year decline since February. Government data reveals a clear trend: the path to Canadian asylum is becoming far more difficult.
Legal experts and advocates report that border officials are applying existing rules with a new level of scrutiny. The risk for those arriving at the border has increased exponentially, with rejection now potentially leading to swift return and US custody.
“The rules may not have changed on paper, but how they’re enforced has,” explains Audrey Macklin, a human rights law professor at the University of Toronto. This subtle but powerful shift is reshaping the landscape for those fleeing persecution.
Southern Quebec, a short drive from New York City, has long been a focal point for asylum seekers. For years, individuals have navigated forests and fields, exploiting a loophole within the Safe Third Country Agreement – a US-Canada pact designed to regulate refugee claims.
Montreal, with its large Haitian diaspora and French-speaking environment, has been a particularly attractive destination for refugees from Haiti. The city offered a sense of community and a potential foothold in a new life.
The Safe Third Country Agreement was tightened in 2023, specifically targeting irregular border crossings and making it harder for individuals to remain in Canada. The intent was clear: discourage unauthorized entry.
Canada has sent back 4,035 refugee claimants to the US in the first eleven months of the year, a 29% increase compared to the same period last year. A significant portion – roughly two-thirds – entered Canada through official border crossings.
Current leadership is building upon previous policy changes, aiming to bring the immigration system “under control.” Experts suggest the numbers indicate a system rapidly becoming less accessible to those seeking protection.
The Safe Third Country Agreement stipulates that individuals must seek protection in the first safe country they reach – either the US or Canada. However, exceptions exist for those with family in Canada, minors, and those possessing specific travel documents.
Stephanie Valois, a Montreal immigration lawyer with three decades of experience, notes a dramatic change. Now, she rarely sees individuals attempting to cross unless they are confident they qualify for the family exemption. “They are monitoring the border much more closely now,” she states.
The focus has shifted from testimony and questioning to rigorous documentary proof, even when obtaining such documentation is nearly impossible for those fleeing desperate circumstances. This creates an insurmountable barrier for many.
While those with family ties continue to attempt entry, the risks for others have become prohibitive. “It’s very dangerous,” Valois warns. “If it doesn’t work out, you can get into trouble, maybe even be arrested.”
Valois recounts a recent case where a client, despite having family in Canada, was returned to the US and subsequently detained because border officials rejected his evidence. The inherent difficulty of obtaining official documentation from unstable regions was disregarded.
“Asylum seekers, by definition, don’t always have very strong documents,” she explains. “Birth certificates from Haiti or Yemen are often not original. Details may differ due to poorly organized administrations.” Even marriage certificates are being questioned.
The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) maintains that enforcement standards haven’t changed. However, they emphasize that officers must be “satisfied” that family relationships are legitimate and that relatives meet the required status criteria.
Despite the CBSA’s assertion, the number of asylum applications at Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle through November was double that of the same period last year. However, applications have plummeted almost everywhere else, with a 42% overall decline.
This drop is largely attributed to increased scrutiny of temporary resident visa applications and efforts to identify individuals who are “non-genuine” – those who claim to be tourists but intend to seek asylum upon arrival. A partial visa requirement for Mexican nationals has also contributed to the decline.
The government insists it supports “fair and rigorous immigration procedures” that protect Canadians while upholding international obligations. But lawyers representing asylum seekers paint a different picture, suggesting a hardening of both rules and attitudes.
“The practical message to asylum seekers is clear: the likelihood of being found ineligible and sent back to the US has increased, and the consequences of return are significant,” says Toronto immigration lawyer Mario Bellissimo.
Some argue for a reversal of course, advocating for easier access to asylum for those fleeing the US. Former cabinet ministers Lloyd Axworthy and Allan Rock contend that the Safe Third Country Agreement is unconstitutional, stating simply, “The United States is not safe for many refugees.”
The debate is intensifying as Parliament considers Bill C-12, which would impose a one-year deadline for refugee claims and accelerate the screening process. Concerns are rising about the potential consequences of restricting access to protection.
Audrey Macklin warns that making it harder to seek asylum doesn’t eliminate the need; it simply drives individuals underground, potentially leading to even harsher responses. The tightening of borders may not solve the problem, but rather exacerbate it.
