International
Trudeau, Biden agree to end ‘loophole’ in Safe Third Country Agreement: sources
A family of asylum seekers from Colombia is met by RCMP officers after crossing the border at Roxham Road into Canada Thursday, Feb. 9, 2023, in Champlain, New York. Canada and the United States are on the cusp of agreeing to designate all 8,900 km of their shared border as an official crossing under the Safe Third Country Agreement.THE CANADIAN PRESS/Ryan Remiorz
By Mia Rabson and Laura Osman in Ottawa
Canada and the United States have agreed to have asylum seekers turned back at irregular border crossings across the border, including Roxham Road in Quebec.
The U.S. will agree to extend a bilateral treaty known as the Safe Third Country Agreement to apply along the 8,900 kilometres of the shared border, according to an official with the administration of President Joe Biden, who arrived in Ottawa Thursday evening.
In exchange, Canada will agree to welcome an additional 15,000 migrants from across the Western Hemisphere over the next year on a humanitarian basis, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
A Canadian government official with knowledge of the talks, granted anonymity to discuss matters not yet made public, also said Thursday that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Biden would discuss the issue during a bilateral meeting Friday.
The official said details were still being negotiated, but the leaders agreed in principle.
The agreement follows talks between Trudeau and Biden at the Summit of the Americas in Los Angeles last June, a migration-heavy meeting where Canada agreed to admit just 4,000 more migrants by 2028.
Such a deal would not physically close off the Roxham Road unofficial crossing in Quebec, where thousands of migrants have entered Canada so they can make an asylum claim.
But it would effectively end its time as a viable route to Canada, as migrants who continue to cross there, or at any other unofficial crossing, would be treated as if they crossed at an official border checkpoint and be returned to the United States to make an asylum claim there.
Those travelling into the U.S. from Canada at unofficial crossings would likewise be returned north of the border by American authorities.
Under the Safe Third Country Agreement, first signed between the U.S. and Canada in 2004, asylum seekers must make their claim in whichever country they arrive first. That currently applies only to official border crossings.
But increasing numbers of migrants are opting to get around that rule by crossing at unofficial locations, such as Roxham Road, 50 kilometres south of Montreal. Taking this route means they can stay in Canada while waiting for a hearing, or for their case to be decided.
Last year, 39,000 people claimed asylum after crossing the unofficial border point into Quebec.
A lawyer for Amnesty International called the move to expand the provisions of the agreement “unconscionable,” from a human rights perspective.
“It’ll just push people to more remote areas, more dangerous crossings,” said Julia Sande, a lawyer for the organization.
“If they’re not going to be offered protection in the United States, they’ll do what they need to do to get here, and that will just push people into dangerous situations.”
The organization is one of three that are challenging the constitutionality of the Safe Third Country Agreement in the Supreme Court, arguing that the United States can’t be counted on to carry out Canada’s obligations to refugees under international law.
Meanwhile, the mayor of Niagara Falls, Ont., expressed relief that Canada and the U.S. appear to have made a tentative decision on the border crossing.
The federal government began transferring asylum claimants to various cities in Ontario, including Niagara Falls, after the Quebec government voiced concerns the migrants were placing pressure on publicly funded services.
Mayor Jim Diodati said 2,000 hotel rooms have been booked by the federal government for the asylum seekers and he found out Thursday that 500 more rooms were reserved for another group arriving on buses from the country road.
“That’s a lot of people in our community, considering (the) population is about 95,000 people,” he said in a phone interview. “That’s a huge, immediate impact to our community.”
The federal immigration minister’s office would not comment on the details and status of the Canada-U.S. negotiations on Thursday.
At a press conference Wednesday, Immigration Minister Sean Fraser would only say his department was working on a solution that would go beyond the politics of the president’s visit and “provide an actual lasting solution” to irregular border crossings.
Fraser said there has been no need for “horse trading” in the negotiations with the U.S. on the issue.
“This is something that both Canada and the United States believe in, is having an orderly policy at all of our borders, but also welcoming immigration policies for those who are fleeing violence, war, or persecution,” he said.
There are larger-scale issues that must also be addressed, he said, including capacity to address the root causes of migration from countries people are fleeing from in the first place.
Biden arrived in Canada Thursday night for a 27-hour state visit, his first formal trip to Canada since being sworn in as the U.S. president in January 2021. Trudeau and Biden are to meet for a formal bilateral discussion in Trudeau’s Parliament Hill office Friday morning.
Canada and the United States have been discussing how to improve the Safe Third Country Agreement for nearly five years.
In Canada, there are political divisions about what to do, with Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre calling for Canada to just “close” Roxham Road.
NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, for his part, wants the Safe Third Country Agreement suspended, allowing any migrant to make a claim in Canada regardless of how they get here.
“We believe that would give dignity to people that are already fleeing serious threats to their lives,” Singh told reporters Thursday, though he said he’s open to other solutions.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published March 23, 2023.
— With files from Fakiha Baig in Toronto and James McCarten in Washington.
The federal charges represent the biggest legal jeopardy so far for Trump, coming less than three months after he was charged in New York with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.
Here’s a look at the charges, the special counsel’s investigation and how Trump’s case differs from those of other politicians known to be in possession of classified documents:
WHAT ARE THE CHARGES, AND HOW IS TRUMP REACTING?
Trump has been charged with seven counts related to the mishandling of classified documents, according to two people familiar with the indictment but not authorized to speak publicly about it.
Trump’s lawyer James Trusty said Thursday on CNN that the indictment includes charges of willful retention of national defense information, obstruction of justice, false statements and conspiracy.
Trump, on his Truth Social app, called it “a DARK DAY for the United States of America.” In a video post, he said, “I’m innocent and we will prove that very, very soundly and hopefully very quickly.” Within 20 minutes of breaking the news, his 2024 presidential campaign sent out a fundraising missive telling his followers he’d been indicted and asking for financial support.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
The Justice Department did not immediately publicly confirm the indictment, and any charges were not publicly filed.
Trump said he’d been summoned to appear in court Tuesday afternoon in Miami. It wasn’t immediately clear if Trump planned to make the appearance and what the procedure would look like.
When he was charged by the Manhattan district attorney in the New York case, Trump surrendered to authorities, where he was booked behind closed doors and appeared in the courtroom, sitting with his lawyers at the defense table.
HOW DID THIS CASE COME ABOUT?
Officials with the National Archives and Records Administration reached out to representatives for Trump in spring 2021 when they realized that important material from his time in office was missing from their collection.
According to the Presidential Records Act, White House documents are considered property of the U.S. government and must be preserved.
A Trump representative told the National Archives in December 2021 that presidential records had been found at Mar-a-Lago. In January 2022, the National Archives retrieved 15 boxes of documents from Trump’s Florida home, later telling Justice Department officials that they contained “a lot” of classified material.
That May, the FBI and Justice Department issued a subpoena for remaining classified documents in Trump’s possession. Investigators who went to visit the property weeks later to collect the records were given roughly three dozen documents and a sworn statement from Trump’s lawyers attesting that the requested information had been returned.
But that assertion turned out to be false. With a search warrant, federal officials returned to Mar-a-Lago in August 2022 and seized more than 33 boxes and containers totaling 11,000 documents from a storage room and an office, including 100 classified documents.
In all, roughly 300 documents with classification markings — including some at the top-secret level — have been recovered from Trump since he left office in January 2021.
HOW DID A SPECIAL COUNSEL GET INVOLVED?
Last year, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland picked Jack Smith, a veteran war crimes prosecutor with a background in public corruption probes, to lead investigations into the presence of classified documents at Trump’s Florida estate, as well as key aspects of a separate probe involving the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection and efforts to undo the 2020 election.
Smith’s appointment was a recognition by Garland of the politics involved in an investigation into a former president and current White House candidate. Garland himself was selected by Democratic President Joe Biden, whom Trump is seeking to challenge for the White House in 2024.
Special counsels are appointed in cases in which the Justice Department perceives itself as having a conflict or where it’s deemed to be in the public interest to have someone outside the government come in and take responsibility for a matter.
According to the Code of Federal Regulations, a special counsel must have “a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking,” as well as “an informed understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice policies.”
DIDN’T BIDEN AND FORMER VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE HAVE CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS, TOO?
Yes, but the circumstances of their cases are vastly different from the situation involving Trump.
After classified documents were found at Biden’s think tank and Pence’s Indiana home, their lawyers notified authorities and quickly arranged for them to be handed over. They also authorized other searches by federal authorities to search for additional documents.
There is no indication either was aware of the existence of the records before they were found, and no evidence has so far emerged that Biden or Pence sought to conceal the discoveries. That’s important because the Justice Department historically looks for willfulness in deciding whether to bring criminal charges.
A special counsel was appointed earlier this year to probe how classified materials ended up at Biden’s Delaware home and former office. But even if the Justice Department were to find Biden’s case prosecutable on the evidence, its Office of Legal Counsel has concluded that a president is immune from prosecution during his time in office.
As for Pence, the Justice Department informed his legal team earlier this month that it would not be pursuing criminal charges against him over his handling of the documents.
DOES A FEDERAL INDICTMENT PREVENT TRUMP FROM RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT?
No. Neither the indictment itself nor a conviction would prevent Trump from running for or winning the presidency in 2024.
And as the New York case showed, criminal charges have historically been a boon to his fundraising. The campaign announced that it had raised over $4 million in the 24 hours after that indictment became public, far smashing its previous record after the FBI search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club.
HOW ARE TRUMP’S REPUBLICAN RIVALS REACTING TO THE NEWS?
Many of Trump’s challengers for the GOP nomination jumped to his defense Thursday night after news of the indictment broke.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Trump’s top rival for the 2024 nomination, accused the Justice Department of political bias in charging the former president.
“The weaponization of federal law enforcement represents a mortal threat to a free society,” DeSantis tweeted. “We have for years witnessed an uneven application of the law depending upon political affiliation.”
He questioned why the Justice Department had been “so zealous” in bringing charges against Trump and “so passive” about going after former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton or Biden’s son Hunter.
Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina said he felt the justice system’s “scales are weighted” based on politics. “In America, every single person is presumed innocent, not guilty,” Scott said on Fox News, decrying “the weaponization of the Department of Justice against the former president.”
Biotech entrepreneur and “anti-woke” activist Vivek Ramaswamy said the federal case was part of “an affront to every citizen.” Reiterating his comments that he would pardon Trump, Ramaswamy called it “hypocritical for the DOJ to selectively prosecute Trump but not” Biden over his own classified documents case.
Former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, who called for Trump to drop out of the race after the New York charges were filed, said the federal indictment marked “a sad day for our country” and “reaffirms the need for Donald Trump to respect the office and end his campaign.”
Former Vice President Mike Pence said earlier Thursday that if Trump were to be indicted, he would hope the Justice Department had strong evidence — a shift in tone from the night before, when he said he hoped Trump wouldn’t be charged even if evidence is clear he committed a crime.
___
From the Brownstone Institute
The European Union’s Internal Market Commissioner, Thierry Breton, was apparently miffed that Elon Musk withdrew Twitter from the EU’s “voluntary code of practice against disinformation.” He was sufficiently put out by Twitter’s withdrawal from the “voluntary code” that he felt the need to publicly reprimand Twitter for not gratefully submitting to the European Union’s expert guidance: “You can run but you can’t hide…Beyond voluntary commitments, fighting disinformation will be legal obligation under Digital Services Act as of August 25th.”
The declared aim of the new Digital Service Act is “to contribute to the proper functioning of the internal market for intermediary services by setting out harmonised rules for a safe, predictable and trusted online environment that facilitates innovation and in which fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter, including the principle of consumer protection, are effectively protected.”
*Click here to give some extra support to my work by upgrading to a paid subscription*
Who can argue against a “safe, predictable and trusted online environment?” Who would argue against “consumer protection?” And who would argue against Mr Breton’s commitment to the fight against “disinformation?” I certainly would, because when a person or institution in a position of great power endorses values like “predictability,” rails against “disinformation,” and promises to keep us all “safe” on the internet, you can be sure that it will be “safety,” “predictability,” and “disinformation,” as viewed from their self-serving ideological and political perspective.
I am just as worried as Mr Breton about “disinformation,” but my chief concern is with disinformation coming from official sources, which can do an extraordinary amount of harm due to the extraordinary reach and prestige of official organisations. It is these same organisations that Mr Breton would like to put in charge of policing “disinformation:” organisations like national governments, that have been among the most frequent perpetrators of false and misleading information, on matters of no small moment, from the efficacy and safety of Covid vaccines, masks and lockdowns to the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the true standing of climate “science,” and the potential harms to the economy and food supply chain of aggressive climate interventions such as the expropriation of farmland.
The Digital Services Act is an endless maze of complicated regulations worthy of a team of lawyers. Seeing as I don’t have a budget to hire a team of lawyers, I decided to skim through the Act for myself. It does not make for pleasant bedtime reading, not only because it is a morass of complicated legalese, but also, because what hides behind this legalese is an attempt by EU politicians to get social media platforms under their thumb, through
- the obligation on the part of social media companies to periodically submit content moderation and “risk mitigation” reports to EU bureacrats
- EU supervision of social media platforms’ policing of “harmful” information, which could potentially include health misinformation as well as “illegal hate speech”
- the creation of new emergency powers in the European Commission to “require” social media platforms to take actions to “prevent, eliminate or limit” any use of their services that might “contribute” to a “threat” to public security or public health
…and all backed up by crippling fines of up to 6 percent of a company’s worldwide turnover for non-compliance. Yes, you heard that right: up to six percent of a company’s worldwide turnover.
At bottom, the Digital Services Act is an attempt to ramp up the level of control that EU bureacrats have over the flow of information on social media platforms. You would have to have a very short historical memory to think that broad powers of censorship will generally be used to advance the cause of truth and justice. Whether Mr Thierry Breton and his colleagues will be successful in forcing social media companies to do their bidding, this much is clear: the Digital Services Act creates a European legal environment that is increasingly hostile to free speech.
Republished from the author’s Substack
Author
Tour the 2023 Red Deer Hospital Home Lottery grand prize dream home
Hundreds of thousands march in Poland anti-government protests to show support for democracy
Saskatchewan landowners fight against illegal drainage washing out land, roads
Premiers need to keep talking about the health-care crisis: medical associations
Poilievre threatens to filibuster budget bill if Liberals don’t meet demands
GM to invest more than $1 billion in two Flint, Mich., plants
City official says Calgary Flames arena deal to include a 35-year commitment to stay
-
Health1 day agoWHO’s Global Digital Health Certification Network
-
Alberta2 days agoLawyer tells Alberta’s highest court review board biased in de Grood’s case
-
Top Story CP2 days agoGauld nets winner as Whitecaps beat CF Montreal to claim Canadian Championship
-
National1 day agoTrans, non-binary students under 16 in N.B. need parental consent for pronoun changes
-
Top Story CP2 days agoAmerican Roger Reeves wins Griffin Poetry Prize for ‘Best Barbarian’
-
Business1 day agoLiberal budget bill passes in House of Commons after Conservative filibuster attempt
-
Alberta2 days agoCanada under pressure to produce more food, protect agricultural land: report
-
National1 day ago‘Unmitigated gall’: Senator rejects minister’s call to pass Liberal guns bill quickly