Skip to main content

Nearly half of Canadians say asylum seekers who have not already made a refugee claim in the United States should be given a full hearing upon crossing the border, but are divided over how people who already claimed asylum in the United States should be treated, according to a new poll. ​

A Nanos poll, commissioned by The Globe and Mail, found that 48 per cent of Canadians think asylum seekers who have not already made a claim in the U.S. should be given access to a full hearing, while 33 per cent said they should be refused entry and returned to their country of origin, and 13 per cent said they should be given a shorter claim process; 6 per cent said they were unsure.

preferred government action–

no claim

If an asylum seeker has not made a refugee

claim in the U.S. and walks across the Canadian

border where there is no border crossing, what

should the government do for that asylum

seeker?

Be given a full refugee

hearing to determine

whether the person should

be allowed into Canada or

returned to their country of

origin

48%

Be refused entry into

Canada and returned to

their country of origin

33%

Be given a shorter process

to determine if it is safe to

send them back to their

country of origin

13%

Unsure

6%

Nanos Research, RDD dual frame hybrid telephone and online

random survey, April 2 to April 28, 2019, n=1000, accurate 3.1

percentage points plus or minus, 19 times out of 20.5

JOHN SOPINSKI/THE GLOBE AND MAIL

SOURCE: nanos research

preferred government action–no claim

If an asylum seeker has not made a refugee claim in the

U.S. and walks across the Canadian border where there is

no border crossing, what should the government do for

that asylum seeker?

Be given a full refugee hearing

to determine whether the

person should be allowed into

Canada or returned to their

country of origin

48%

Be refused entry into Canada

and returned to their country

of origin

33%

Be given a shorter process

to determine if it is safe to

send them back to their

country of origin

13%

6%

Unsure

Nanos Research, RDD dual frame hybrid telephone and online random

survey, April 2 to April 28, 2019, n=1000, accurate 3.1 percentage points

plus or minus, 19 times out of 20.5

JOHN SOPINSKI/THE GLOBE AND MAIL

SOURCE: nanos research

preferred government action–no claim

If an asylum seeker has not made a refugee claim in the U.S. and walks across the

Canadian border where there is no border crossing, what should the government do

for that asylum seeker?

Be given a full refugee hearing to deter-

mine whether the person should be

allowed into Canada or returned to their

country of origin

48%

Be refused entry into Canada and

returned to their country of origin

33%

Be given a shorter process to determine if

it is safe to send them back to their coun

try of origin

13%

Unsure

6%

Nanos Research, RDD dual frame hybrid telephone and online random survey, April 2

to April 28, 2019, n=1000, accurate 3.1 percentage points plus or minus, 19 times out of 20.5

JOHN SOPINSKI/THE GLOBE AND MAIL, SOURCE: nanos research

Respondents were also asked how the government should treat asylum seekers who have already made a claim in the United States and, thus, would be affected by the Liberal government’s proposed tougher line on asylum seekers. Thirty-six per cent of Canadians said those asylum seekers should be given a full refugee hearing, while nearly just as many respondents – 34 per cent – said they should be refused entry entirely; 20 per cent said they should be given access to a shorter process and 11 per cent were unsure.

Story continues below advertisement

preferred government action–

claim has been made

If an asylum seeker has already made a refu-

gee claim in the U.S. what should the govern

ment do for that asylum seeker if they show

up at the Canadian border?

Be given a full refugee

hearing to determine

whether the person should

be allowed into Canada or

returned to their country of

origin

36%

Be refused entry into Canada and returned to their country of origin

34%

Be given a shorter

process to determine if it

is safe to send them back

to their country of origin

20%

11%

Unsure

Nanos Research, RDD dual frame hybrid telephone and online

random survey, April 2 to April 28, 2019, n=1000, accurate 3.1

percentage points plus or minus, 19 times out of 20.5

JOHN SOPINSKI/THE GLOBE AND MAIL

SOURCE: nanos research

preferred government action–

claim has been made

If an asylum seeker has already made a refugee claim in

the U.S. what should the government do for that asylum

seeker if they show up at the Canadian border?

Be given a full refugee hearing

to determine whether the

person should be allowed into

Canada or returned to their

country of origin

36%

Be refused entry into Canada

and returned to their country

of origin

34%

Be given a shorter process to

determine if it is safe to send

them back to their country

of origin

20%

11%

Unsure

Nanos Research, RDD dual frame hybrid telephone and online random

survey, April 2 to April 28, 2019, n=1000, accurate 3.1 percentage points

plus or minus, 19 times out of 20.5

JOHN SOPINSKI/THE GLOBE AND MAIL

SOURCE: nanos research

preferred government action–claim has been made

If an asylum seeker has already made a refugee claim in the U.S. what should the

government do for that asylum seeker if they show up at the Canadian border?

Be given a full refugee hearing to determine

whether the person should be allowed into

Canada or returned to their country of origin

36%

Be refused entry into Canada and

returned to their country of origin

34%

Be given a shorter process to determine

if it is safe to send them back to their

country of origin

20%

11%

Unsure

Nanos Research, RDD dual frame hybrid telephone and online random survey, April 2 to

April 28, 2019, n=1000, accurate 3.1 percentage points plus or minus, 19 times out of 20.5

JOHN SOPINSKI/THE GLOBE AND MAIL, SOURCE: nanos research

The poll comes after the government proposed major changes to Canada’s refugee system. The changes, contained in last month’s budget bill, mean asylum seekers who have already made a refugee claim in the United States, Britain, Australia or New Zealand would be prevented from having access to a full refugee hearing by an independent tribunal. Rather, they would be offered a preremoval risk assessment, which is overseen by the Immigration Department instead of the Immigration and Refugee Board, the tribunal responsible for making decisions on most asylum cases.

Pollster Nik Nanos noted that nearly one in three Canadians say asylum seekers should be refused entry to the country entirely, regardless of whether they already made a claim in the United States.

“I think this speaks to why politicians are engaging on this in terms of taking a hard line or being more compassionate and that this is a divisive issue," Mr. Nanos said.

However, refugee advocates see the poll in a different light, welcoming the fact that respondents most often think asylum claimants should be given access to a full refugee hearing.

“It’s great to see that a fair proportion of Canadians recognize that refugees need a full hearing and I was particularly struck by the high percentage in Quebec, which is of course where we’ve seen the largest number of people crossing over from the U.S.," said Janet Dench, executive director of the Canadian Council for Refugees.

More than 42,000 asylum seekers have entered Canada through unauthorized points of entry over the past two years. Most have been able to remain in Canada through a loophole in the Safe Third Country Agreement, which requires Canada and the United States to refuse entry to most asylum seekers who arrive along the shared border, as both countries are considered safe for refugees. Since the agreement applies only to those who arrive at official points of entry, asylum seekers can avoid being immediately turned away by crossing between border posts, requiring Canada to process most of their claims.

Mireille Paquet, an immigration policy expert at Concordia University, said it’s important to remember that most Canadians don’t have a full understanding of the asylum system when responding to polls.

Story continues below advertisement

“Research shows that people have very limited understanding of the overall refugee determination process – how it works, what are the entitlements associated with getting status, what is the difference between a refugee and an asylum seeker – all of the new terms that have been much more present in the public discourse in the last two years,” Prof. Paquet said.

The poll surveyed 1,000 Canadians through phone and online surveys between April 25 and 28; the margin of error is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. The results were statistically weighted by age and gender using the latest Census information and the sample is geographically representative of Canada.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter