Difficulties in enforcing secure agreements with third countries may limit their deterrent effect. The Dublin Regulation is a striking example. Given the notoriously low transfer rates, Dublin has done little to limit the number of asylum seekers between EU countries, which is rather a persistent problem. Let us move on to this idea of a secure agreement with third countries. The EU has one with Turkey. The United States has one with Canada. With Mexico, as we just heard there, there are a lot of details that we do not know yet. In theory, however, this would mean that Central American migrants would have to apply for asylum in the first country they arrive in. For Guatemalans, it`s Mexico. For migrants from Honduras and El Salvador, this could mean Guatemala. But who decides whether a country, a quote, is “safe.” Well, I ask an expert, Sarah Pierce, an analyst at the Migration Policy Institute. She says the answer is complicated. The Refugee Act states that any non-citizen can apply for asylum in the United States, “whether or not it is a particular port of arrival” and “regardless of [their immigration status].” The only exceptions apply to those who were “relocated” to another country prior to their arrival in the United States or if they crossed another country with which the United States has an agreement on a “safe third country”.
Washington – Mexico`s top diplomat on Tuesday touted his government`s efforts to stem the flow of migrants trying to reach the United States and reach an agreement between the two countries into a “safe third country” as unnecessary and politically indefensible. While secure agreements from third countries appear on paper to offer the potential to discourage new asylum applications and speed up asylum procedures, experience shows that these could be false promises. The reality is that these rules have generally proved difficult to implement, not rusty, discouraging new applications, and that procedures for already overburdened asylum systems have been expanded to new complexities. “We are talking about forcing people to stay in countries where the government is unable to protect them, lock them up and throw away the key,” said Ursela Ojeda, an adviser on migrant rights and judicial policy to the Women`s Refugee Commission. “This is unprecedented in the sense that the idea that we would consider these countries safe is ridiculous. People are going to suffer, and people are going to die. The administration insists that several new agreements on the security of third-country nationals be established: the determination of the validity of a country as “safe” by the Attorney General should be reviewed in federal courts.