A state can treat its citizens and non-citizens differently, although there should be legitimate and reasonable causes for this approach. In Canada, the Canadian Council for Refugees v Canada is an example of the different principles applied to the people who have citizenship and those seeking asylum in this country. This paper will explore the Canadian Council for Refugees v Canada and the Canada-US Safe Third Country Agreement.
The Canadian Council for Refugees v Canada is centered around the issue of returning refugees from third countries who are ineligible claimants for asylum who can be exposed to unfair treatment. More specifically, “risks in the form of detention, refoulement, and other violations of their rights contrary to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees” (“Canadian Council for Refugees v Canada,” 2020). Evidently, the state would not apply the same rules and regulations to its citizens as their basic human rights are protected and are the base of the legislation system. However, with refugees, the current situation shows that the state is willingly subjecting them to such violations and risks.
Such treatment is justified only if it is reasonable and pursues a legitimate aim, which under current circumstances has not been proven by the government. This approach is based on the Canada-US Safe Third Country Agreement that entitles individuals entering the state who do not have a legitimate reason to be viewed as refugees to be returned to the United States (“Canada-US Safe Third Country Agreement,” n.d.). On the other hand, this agreement states that refugees have to claim their status in the first safe country that they arrive in unless an exception can be applied to their case. All in all, the current treatment of refugees in Canada appears to be unfair.
References
The Canadian Council for Refugees et al v Minister for Immigration and Minister for Public Safety. (2020). Web.
Canada-US Safe Third Country Agreement. (n.d.). Web.