In Europe, it has been found that the burden adding procedure is found to be a burden adding system, since the same asylum seeker follows procedures allowed in one or more countries until he finally finds a country ready to get into the substance of his case. While the Canada-U.S. agreement concerns only two states involved in the precise determination of rights holders in Canada, a diversion of resources far from determining whether the applicant needs protection to determine whether the applicants are complying with the waivers in the agreement. And while the refugee is again traumatized by the waiting process to see if he is really an exception, other psychological costs are borne. Since 1989, Canadian law has made the denial of asylum seekers because of «safe third country» reasons, but the provision has never been invoked. In the mid-1990s, the governments of the United States and Canada came up with an agreement that is currently on the table, but negotiations were halted before it could be concluded. Although the Canadian government states that the United States still meets all of the STCA criteria (for example. A good human rights record, refugee advocates argue that it is more rhetorical than realistic. They express human rights concerns about the impact of the travel ban on refugees and asylum seekers. The anti-immigration rhetoric created by the executive has fuelled fears about human rights and the safety of refugees. There have been numerous cases of xenophobia and racism against refugees and migrants, who are visible minorities. Concerns have been raised about the lack of security legislation for refugee protection in the United States. This security problem and argument give refugees legitimate reasons to turn around in Canada to lead a better life.
On December 29, 2005, a group of refugee and human rights organizations (in Canada and the United States) launched legal action against the U.S. claim as a safe third country for asylum seekers. This action was supported by prominent figures such as Justice Michael Phelan of the Federal Court of Canada on November 29, 2007 and many others. Following the publication of the judgment, the public interest parties involved in the case asked the federal government not to appeal the court`s decision and to stop sending individuals back to the United States as part of the agreement. McDonald gave the government until the end of January to prepare for the break of the agreement because it understood that it was in the public interest not to terminate the agreement immediately. Ahmed Hussen, speaking as Canada`s Minister of the IRCC, said the terms of the agreement on the security of third-country nationals are still being respected. The ruling Liberal Party of Canada has not indicated any plans or intentions to suspend the agreement.  To date, the United States is the only country to be designated by Canada as a safe third country under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The Donald J. Trump government is urging Guatemala and several other Latin American countries to sign «safe third countries» agreements that would require migrants to seek asylum in countries where they travel rather than in the United States. But can these countries offer them security? Asylum seekers are required to apply in the first country in which they enter, which is a party to the safe third country agreement.