Around the globe, states have shuttered their borders in an effort to stop the spread of Covid-19. When Canada announced its border closure on 14 March, over one million citizens and permanent residents rushed back in a matter of days to avoid being stranded abroad. Suddenly, the mark of citizenship had become more precious than ever, a commodity of political belonging key to rejoining loved ones and waiting out the virus behind closed doors.
Asylum seekers have not been so fortunate. At first, the Canadian government had announced a plan to introduce a 14-day mandatory isolation period for asylum seekers arriving irregularly into Canada from the United States. Several days later, the tone had quickly shifted, with Trudeau declaring during a public address that asylum seekers who attempt to cross the Canada-US border to make claims for asylum would be turned back. It has since been reported that the United States is considering the return of asylum seekers to their country of origin. This would be a violation of nonrefoulement, a cornerstone of the Refugee Convention that prevents states from returning asylum seekers to places of persecution.
Governments worldwide have had to make difficult decisions to address the growing number of covid-19 cases that are threatening lives and wreaking havoc on our healthcare systems and economies. Cancellations and closures have been made in all facets of life. Yet, eliminating the right to seek asylum will have severe implications for those in need of safe ground. What’s more, the Canadian government has already made important exemptions to the border closure under the definition of essential travel, allowing the entry of migrants such as temporary foreign workers, international students, and permanent resident applicants with previously approved applications. If critical health precautions can be put in place to ensure the safe entry of citizens and particular migrant groups - why not include asylum seekers, who have nowhere else to go?
