Canadian immigration department orders asylum claimants who crossed U.S. border irregularly to leave or face deportation

While an understandable feeling it is a bit misplaced. There are many points of view and conflicting information floating around about immigration in Canada. It is a hot topic. One of the exacerbating issues is fake and inappropriate asylum claims. Many fake claims occurred commencing early last fall when other methods to attempt to stay in Canada were closed off by the Carney government. A recent announcement by the Carney government has nullified almost all asylum claims made post June 32025. The IRCC order discussed in this Globe article is a corollary to the step up in nullifying inappropriate asylum claims as anyone who crossed the land border to Canada from America is required to have made an asylum claim in America (Safe Third Country Agreement), and so is not eligible to apply for asylum in Canada. There was an exception allowed in certain instances (14 day rule) which has now been nullified. A portion of the article is devoted to the fact there are still some circumstances where a person who made an asylum claim is eligible by other reasons to obtain status and they not knowing it. It likely affects few but the problem does exist. Canada has traditionally relied upon self deportation. It is cost effective and historically it is a policy that worked. There is a belief now that more and more people who have status that is ended are avoiding self deportation. CBSA has ramped up its removals in 2025 and they set a new high that year, and it is fair to say they will exceed that this year. And most whom have an expired residency status are leaving. Statistics last year indicate a large net outflow which you can view here: [https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710004001&pickMembers%5B0%5D=1.1&cubeTimeFrame.startMonth=01&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=2023&cubeTimeFrame.endMonth=10&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=2025&referencePeriods=20230101%2C20251001](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710004001&pickMembers%5B0%5D=1.1&cubeTimeFrame.startMonth=01&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=2023&cubeTimeFrame.endMonth=10&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=2025&referencePeriods=20230101%2C20251001) Canada prefers to do everything possible to encourage voluntary exit as forced/involuntary exit is very expensive. There is sentiment in certain circles that Canada is doing nothing. But that is not the case and the net outflows show the various pressures being exerted to entice end-of-status persons to leave is working. Like many other matters, the pendulum swings one way then another on immigration. In a world of conflict it is not an easy one to resolve as immigration of all types has many broad social and economic effects both positive and negative depending on where the pendulum is in the journey along the curve. And of course it is a hot button issue for some political persuasions. In the broadest context Canada is reigning in immigration, experienced a net population decline in 2025 because of net outflows of expired status to live in Canada, and is anticipated to see an even larger net outflow in 2026 and perhaps 2027. As is the nature of humans, a minority will fight exiting the country by every means possible including illegal means and the majority will abide the law.

1. I doubt the characterization would make a difference to the people making the decision to enter Canada between ports of entry. 2. Irregular is probably the more correct term for most of these cases. You can say it's illegal to cross between ports of entry, which is true but then there is a special provision in the Refugees Convention (and so broadly applies to all signatories, although there may be slight variations of implementation) which is now on domestic law. That special provision says they cannot be charged with certain offences (like entry without documents, between ports of entry, etc). while their refugee claim is being assessed, and if successful, cannot be charged (so functionally, they cannot be charged and it's unsure if it's even illegal at that point of making a refugee claim). If it's unsuccessful, they could be charged (we now have grounds to believe it's illegal) but at that point they will have been issued a departure order so why charge them when they have a active removal order?

Irregular land border crossings have also dropped significantly in the last 18-24 months. I can dig up the stat if necessary as Stats Can and CBSA publish the stats. I viewed and posted them a couple months ago in another discussion but did not bother saving the link. It is not hard to find the info if one is truly interested. I recall that most "crossings" are now occurring at airports, not land borders.

Nah, this stupid use of the word "illegal" for everything mischaracterizes the law (as noted by the other user who commented on this, ManWhoSoldTheWorld01), and also leads to a slippery slope riling up a base to dehumanize people who are actually following a legal process, leading to inhumane detention as we're seeing in the US.

What on earth does this have to do with the main post?

The Jay Treaty was abrogated by the United States when it declared war in 1812. There are consequences for launching a war of conquest against your northern neighbour, particularly if you get your asses handed to you in said war. First Nations individuals already have the right to enter and remain in Canada, regardless of where they were born, if they are a registered member of a First Nation entitled to Indian status under the Indian Act.