Refugee and asylum policy have emerged as a politically fraught fault line in Western nations over the past decade. A deluge of migrants irregularly crossing the Mediterranean has provoked anti-immigrant sentiments, triggering the implementation of increasingly draconian policies designed to reduce the flow of migrants to the European Union.
In the United States, the thousands of migrants crossing the American southern border each month has dominated the national political discourse, fueling the election of President Donald Trump as he campaigned for the mass deportation of millions of undocumented migrants.
Migrants fleeing violence and seeking asylum are increasingly framed in dehumanizing terms across the world, characterized as a demographic or existential threat to the Western way of life.
Despite the political backlash against migrants across Western nations, the majority of the world’s refugees are actually hosted in Global South countries bordering the conflict zones and humanitarian crises. This includes the countries of Turkey, Iran, Colombia, Bangladesh, Kenya, Ethiopia, Lebanon, and a number of others that have collectively taken in much larger volumes of asylum-seekers than Western nations.
The plight of asylum-seekers has increasingly figured in the foreign policy agendas of some disproportionately burdened host countries, arguing for Western nations to live up to their liberal values and the Geneva Convention. As a shining example of the success of liberal democratic values in producing one of the most stable and successful economies in the world, renowned for its embrace of multiculturalism and diversity, Canada has an opportunity to emphasize its asylum policy as key to our foreign policy.
Canada’s Image on the Global Stage
Canada’s approach to foreign policy has long been preoccupied with developing a role on the global stage distinct from our American allies and our historical forebears, France and the United Kingdom. As a “middle power,” Canada lacks the US’s military and economic power, instead seeking to distinguish itself as a champion of multilateralism and the liberal international order.
Amidst the global turn against asylum-seekers, Canada’s long-standing pro-immigration consensus reflects its commitment to liberal values of multiculturalism and diversity, in contrast to the nativism and revanchist retreat from internationalism of Donald Trump’s presidency.
As Trump’s anti-immigrant and isolationist rhetoric grew, in 2015 Prime Minister Justin Trudeau personally welcomed Syrian refugees at Toronto’s Airport, an act seen around the world as showing Canada’s commitment to the liberal international order. “Canada is back!” declared Prime Minister Trudeau, orienting his foreign policy toward securing a coveted seat on the United Nations Security Council in 2020.
Harkening back to Canada’s pivotal role in the United Nations under the Chretien government, which resulted in advancements in international arms control and the establishment of the International Criminal Court, Trudeau sought to position Canada as a beacon for Western liberal democratic values. “The world needs more Canada” was both a slogan and the guiding philosophy of a “constructive and compassionate” foreign policy. Canada’s announcement of a “feminist foreign policy” centered the human rights of the marginalized as a yardstick for global sustainable development.
Canada’s asylum policy and its openness to immigration and socio-economic and cultural benefits distinguished it from the United States and affirmed the liberal international values of the post-WWII global order.
Canada was defeated by Norway and Ireland in the competition for a seat on the United Nations Security Council in 2020. This outcome has been attributed to Canada’s failure to meet its UN commitments relative to Norway and Ireland. Norway provides triple the amount of foreign aid in relation to its GDP than Canada, and Ireland has committed hundreds of troops to peacekeeping missions while Canada has largely retreated from its obligations.
Lofty rhetoric is not enough: Canada’s self-perception of its role on the global arena is fundamentally hampered by its inability to live up to its ideals. Nearly a decade after Prime Minister Trudeau’s declaration of Canada’s openness to the world, the global backlash to migrants has arrived in Canada. There is a widening perception that our immigration system is being exploited by bad-faith actors.
For the first time in a quarter century, a recent poll found a majority of Canadians believing there is “too much immigration.” Though the scale of irregular migrant border crossings in Canada is far less than in America and the European Union, the Trudeau government has responded to public sentiment by slashing immigration targets and promising to reform immigration processes and border security.
Alarmingly, Canada’s vaunted asylum system is under attack. A surge of asylum seekers over the past decade has increased the backlog of 10,000 claimants in 2015 to over 200,000 in 2024. To meet the growing demand, the Trudeau government has doubled the staff of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) over the same time period and issued millions in funding to refugee support organizations.
Yet there are troubling scenes of asylum-seekers sleeping on the streets of Canadian cities. The federal government recently announced the temporary suspension of the Private Sponsorship Refugee Program (PSRP) in order to address the backlog. The success of the PSRP has long been a model for nations around the world. The role of Canadian community organizations and private individuals in our asylum policy has impressively demonstrated Canadian humanitarianism. Tens of thousands of refugees over the past decade have been welcomed, supported, and integrated into communities through the efforts of Canadian citizens.
Canada’s immigration system is in need of reform and more resources should be allocated to the IRP to address the backlog. Unfortunately, the decision to suspend the PSRP rather than strengthen it will have ramifications for Canada’s image globally.
Asylum policy is integral to foreign policy and inter-state relations and has positioned Canada as a champion of Western liberal values. As the world retreats from the Geneva Convention and the UN Declaration of Human Rights that defined asylum policy for decades, Canada has a unique role in affirming the international liberal order.
Canada’s minimal influence over the withdrawal and its overly bureaucratic refugee settlement process, reflects its failures toward the Afghan people.
Lacking the military power that America possesses, Canada can instead distinguish its foreign policy by investing in the safety and success of asylum-seekers at home.
The best case for shifting Canadian foreign policy comes from the lessons learned in Canada’s War in Afghanistan. Canada committed over 18 billion dollars and the lives of 158 Canadian soldiers to the US-led intervention in Afghanistan. Ultimately, however, it could only watch idly as the US withdrew from their two-decade long occupation of that country.
In the chaotic aftermath, the NATO-coalition’s efforts to construct a secular democracy collapsed, and the Taliban’s repressive regime took control. Over a million Afghans, including women’s rights advocates, civil society leaders, dissidents, activists, students and teachers, and religious and ethnic minorities, fled the country. Most of them still languish in refugee camps today.
So far, Canada has met its target of taking in 40,000 Afghan refugees. However, this target has been criticized as being proportionately less than our involvement in Afghanistan. Canadian Parliament’s Special Committee on Afghanistan released a report in 2022 excoriating Canada’s response to the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. The report highlighted Canada’s minimal influence over the withdrawal and its overly bureaucratic refugee settlement process, as reflecting its failures toward the Afghan people.
A damning CBSA report in 2024 found that Afghanistan is one of the main source countries for irregular border crossings. It highlighted the harrowing journeys of over 2000 Afghan asylum-seekers who still saw Canada as a beacon of safety despite the failures of our asylum system.
Canadian political leaders generally characterize Canada’s mission in Afghanistan in the 2000s as being motivated to protect the human rights of Afghan women and girls. Canada committed over 40,000 Canadian soldiers, the largest since World War II, and has played a more active role in Afghanistan’s reconstruction than almost all other coalition countries. Yet, despite our stated “feminist foreign policy,” the Canadian government has accepted few refugees and has not followed the Scandinavian countries in offering blanket asylum to Afghan women and girls.
In its report, Parliament’s Special Committee on Afghanistan drew a sharp contrast to Canada’s response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Recognizing that Canada lacked the military capacities of the US and the European Union, Canada instead used our asylum policy as the primary demonstration of our commitment to the Ukrainian people.
Canada immediately instituted a bold program relaxing existing asylum policy in the aftermath of the Russian invasion, issuing visas and extending access to social services to more than a million Ukrainians since 2022. In doing so, Canada also demonstrated what it could offer to Ukrainians and all those fleeing conflict around the world: a safe refuge in a multicultural democracy and a second chance at life in a thriving advanced economy.
Advocates for asylum-seekers have praised Canadian response to the Ukraine invasion in criticizing its dismal response to humanitarian crises in Afghanistan, Palestine, and Sudan. In comparison to the acceptance over one million Ukrainian asylum-seekers in Canada, only 40,000 Afghan refugees have resettled in Canada.
Moreover, the several thousand spaces offered to Palestinian and Sudanese asylum-seekers are emblematic of the “incoherence,” “double-standards,” and “whiteness” of Canada’s asylum policy. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Afghanistan has recognized Canada’s outsized commitment to human rights in Afghanistan over the past two decades, while urging Canada to protect more Afghan asylum-seekers, as we did for Ukrainians.
Looking Forward
Canada has fiercely opposed the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, suspending all diplomatic relations and taking them to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) alongside several European countries. To little effect. Over a decade of Canadian efforts and investment in Afghanistan, by the federal government and everyday Canadians alike, is withering away. Many of those who participated in those efforts remain languishing in refugee camps.
But Canada can uphold asylum policy as central to its foreign policy and its material contribution to the world. We can open our arms to more women and girls, students, civil society leaders, activists, ethnic and religious minorities, to those who’ve put their lives at risk for Canada, as well as those who expected Canada to live up to ideals. In doing so, the legacy of Canada’s mission in Afghanistan would live on.
This approach to foreign policy can extend to other countries beyond Afghanistan as well. Canada has rightfully used its voice globally to criticize the persecution of vulnerable people in countries from Uganda to Myanmar. However, rhetoric can be easily dismissed. But we can add weight to our words by investing in the IRB & expanding the opportunities for asylum-seekers to succeed in our society. As the global asylum crisis is expected to increase in severity and volume, with conflicts and climate change displacing more and more people each year, Canada’s asylum policy will determine its influence in the emerging crises of tomorrow.
