The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has announced significant changes to the asylum process at the Canada-U.S. border, reducing the time asylum seekers have to consult with legal counsel before presenting their cases. This new policy, a part of broader immigration reforms under President Joe Biden’s administration, cuts the consultation period from 24 hours to just four hours, raising alarm among legal experts and human rights advocates.
The changes come at a time when the number of migrants crossing the northern border has seen a sharp increase, drawing attention from both political parties, especially Republicans, who have criticized the Biden administration’s handling of immigration and border security. According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data, agents apprehended 12,612 people at the Canada-U.S. border in the first six months of 2024, already surpassing the total number of crossings in 2023. This uptick has made border security a prominent talking point in the run-up to the November elections.
Under the revised rules, asylum seekers entering the U.S. from Canada will have a mere four hours to consult with a lawyer, a significant reduction from the previous 24-hour window. Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst with the Migration Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., highlighted the challenges this poses for both asylum seekers and legal service providers. “This makes it incredibly difficult when you consider the complexities of asylum cases,” she said. “Legal service providers already struggle to manage caseloads, and this change severely limits the time needed to properly assess and prepare a case.”
Additionally, the new policy stipulates that border officers will only consider the documentary evidence that asylum claimants have on hand when they arrive. This presents a significant challenge for those fleeing persecution, as they often arrive without comprehensive documentation. “People fleeing for their lives don’t tend to have all their belongings, let alone extensive documentation of persecution,” Bush-Joseph noted.
The Department of Homeland Security stated that it had reviewed the Safe Third Country Agreement with Canada and determined that the new procedures would streamline the asylum process without compromising the fairness of asylum determinations. However, critics argue that the reduced consultation period and restrictions on documentary evidence could violate international obligations. Jamie Chai Yun Liew, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, expressed deep concerns about the implications of these changes. “This is a huge red flag,” Liew said. “It really raises questions about whether the U.S. is meeting its international obligations to asylum seekers.”
Liew, who was part of the legal team that intervened in a Supreme Court of Canada case regarding the Safe Third Country Agreement, pointed out that the agreement has already faced significant legal scrutiny. Last year, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the pact with the U.S. is constitutional, but the new changes could prompt further challenges.
The timing of these changes is particularly notable, as they mirror similar restrictions implemented earlier this year at the U.S.-Mexico border. The Biden administration’s handling of immigration has become a focal point for Republican criticism, with figures like Senator Marco Rubio and former President Donald Trump voicing concerns about border security. Rubio, in a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, emphasized the potential security risks associated with the northern border, particularly in light of Canada’s recent decision to increase temporary visas for Gaza residents.
Trump, during a conversation with tech billionaire Elon Musk, criticized Vice-President Kamala Harris’s oversight of the border situation, questioning her competence and reiterating claims that the Biden administration is failing to secure the borders.
The new asylum rules are part of a broader effort to address a backlog of asylum cases and manage the increasing number of migrants at both the northern and southern borders. However, legal experts warn that these procedural changes may come at the cost of fairness and the ability to provide adequate legal representation to asylum seekers.
Bush-Joseph and Liew both expressed concern that the new timelines and restrictions do not strike the right balance between efficiency and fairness. “It doesn’t balance the interests of an efficient movement of people at the border and ensuring that we are meeting the obligations owed to these people,” Liew said. As the political debate over immigration continues to intensify, the impact of these new policies on asylum seekers and the broader implications for U.S. immigration law will likely remain under scrutiny in the coming months.
Homeland Security Tightens Asylum Procedures at Canada-U.S. Border Amid Rising Political Pressure