--- author: TVO Today date: '2026-11-03' guest: '' layout: post.njk source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSx0pvBbGlc speaker: TVO Today tags: - border-enforcement - asylum-policy - extradition - national-sovereignty - refugee-protection title: 美国移民及海关执法局（ICE）在加拿大扮演何种角色？ summary: 本期节目探讨美国移民及海关执法局（ICE）在加拿大的存在及其对加美边境与难民政策的影响。法律专家 Kent Roach 与 Audrey Macklin 分别讨论了跨境执法主权隐患、《安全第三国协议》争议以及加拿大应对寻求庇护者的法律与人道考量。 insight: '' draft: true series: '' category: geopolitics area: geopolitics project: [] people: - Kent Roach - Audrey Macklin - Jeyan Jeganathan companies_orgs: - Immigration and Customs Enforcement - Institute for Research on Public Policy products_models: [] media_books: [] status: evergreen --- ### ICE的扩张与加拿大分支的背景 >> 许多美国人称这是一场入侵和占领。美国联邦移民及海关执法局（更广为人知的名字是 ICE）的执法人员一直在将人们从家中、工作场所甚至直接从街头带走，最臭名昭著的是在明尼阿波利斯，亚历克斯·普雷蒂（Alex Pretty）和蕾妮·古德（Renee Good）于一月份双双被 ICE 特工杀害。现在，随着美国人准备在一场关键的中期选举中投票，一些人担心 ICE 会出现在投票站。上周，美国司法部表示 ICE 不会作为监督员出现在那里，但选举官员一直在为联邦干预的可能性做准备，包括像 ICE 突袭这类行动。现在，你可能会好奇这与加拿大有什么关系，但 ICE 在这里也有分支机构。一些法律专家表示，加拿大与边境以南发生的事情之间的联系，比我们想象的还要紧密。我是杰扬·杰加纳森（Jeyan Jeganathan），这里是《The Rundown》。ICE，即移民及海关执法局的简称，是一家美国联邦机构，虽然你最近可能经常在新闻头条看到它，但 ICE 实际上已经存在了二十多年。它是在9/11恐怖袭击后创建的，作为美国国土安全重大改革的一部分。从那以后，它在共和党和民主党总统任内都一直在执行驱逐出境。事实上，奥巴马任内监督了如此多的驱逐，以至于批评者给他起了个外号叫“驱逐之王”（deporter in chief）。但唐纳德·特朗普一直以一种前所未有的、极其高调的方式聚焦于移民问题。
Original English >> Many Americans have called it an invasion and an occupation. US Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, better known as ICE, have been taking people from their homes, workplaces and even right off the street, most notoriously in Minneapolis, where Alex Pretty and Renee Good were both killed by ICE agents in January. Now, as Americans gear up to vote in a pivotal midterm election, some are worried ICE will be a presence at polling stations. Last week, the US Justice Department said ICE won't be there as monitors, but election officials have been preparing for the possibility of federal interference, including things like ICE raids. Now, you might be wondering what any of this has to do with Canada, but ICE does have a presence here, too. And some legal experts say Canada is more connected to what's happening south of the border than we might think. I'm Jeyan Jeganathan, and this is The Rundown. ICE, short for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is a US federal agency, and while you may have seen it making headlines lately, ICE has actually been around for more than two decades. It was created after the nine over 11 terrorist attacks as part of a major overhaul of US Homeland Security. And it's been carrying out deportations under both Republican and Democratic presidents ever since. In fact, Obama oversaw so many deportations that critics gave him the nickname deporter in chief. But Donald Trump has been focused on immigration in unprecedented, highly visible way.
>> 我拦下一个正在加油的男子，并要求他出示美国公民身份证明。
Original English >> I stopped a man pumping gas and demanded proof of U.S. citizenship.
>> 又一起 ICE 特工引发的致命枪击事件。
Original English >> Another deadly shooting by ICE agents.
>> 美国移民官员在明尼阿波利斯开枪打死了一名女子。
Original English >> U.S. immigration officer shot dead a woman in Minneapolis.
>> 背后投入的资金多得多。在特朗普的第二个任期内，ICE 的预算飞涨，并且还在争取更多资金。该机构已经变得与特朗普如此紧密绑定，以至于有人给 ICE 取外号叫总统的“私人军队”。但引发担忧的不仅是打击行动的规模，还有它的执行方式。在国际特赦组织（Amnesty International）最近的一份报告中，特朗普政府被指控存在广泛的人权侵犯——比如非法使用武力，包括致命武力，非法监控，以及可能被视为酷刑的残忍、不人道和有辱人格的拘留条件。人权组织称 ICE 拘留设施的条件不人道，仅在2025年就有30多名被拘留者在 ICE 羁押期间死亡。这是根据该机构自己的记录，有人称这是其数十年来死亡人数最多的一年。而且遭受拘留的不仅是成年人。ICE 还拘留了儿童，包括蹒跚学步的幼童，甚至婴儿。根据美国非营利新闻机构马歇尔计划（The Marshall Project）的数据，2026年上半年 ICE 逮捕的儿童人数是去年同期的两倍多。那么 ICE 到底有多庞大？根据该机构自己的网站，它拥有超过20,000名员工，在美国和全球400多个办事处工作。这包括就在加拿大的五个外地办事处。所以是的，ICE 在边境以北也有特工。但他们在这里究竟做什么？又是什么在阻止特工在加拿大抓人呢？据一位法律专家称，并没有什么实质阻碍。肯特·罗奇（Kent Roach），非常高兴你能来《The Rundown》。你最近怎么样？
Original English >> There's a lot more money behind it. During Trump's second term. ICE's budget has skyrocketed with a push for even more funding. The agency has become so synonymous with Trump that some have nicknamed ICE the president's private army. But it's not just the scale of the crackdown that's raising concerns. It's also how it's being carried out. In a recent report from Amnesty International, the Trump administration was accused of widespread human rights violations things like unlawful use of force, including lethal force, unlawful surveillance and cruel, inhumane and degrading detention conditions that may be considered torture. Rights groups have called the conditions in ICE detention facilities inhumane, with more than 30 detainees dying in ICE custody in 2025 alone. That's according to the agency's own records, what some have called its deadliest year in decades. And it's not just adults subject to detention. ICE has detained children, including toddlers, and babies, too. According to The Marshall Project, an American non-profit news Organization, ICE arrested more than twice as many children during the first half of 2026 compared to the same time period the previous year. And just how big is ICE? Well, according to the agency's own website, it has more than 20,000 employees working in more than 400 offices in the United States and around the world. That includes five field offices right here in Canada. So yeah, ICE has agents north of the border. But what exactly do they do here? And what's stopping agents from taking people in Canada? Well, according to one legal expert, not much. Kent Roach, great to have you on The Rundown. How are you doing?
>> 很高兴再次来到这里。
Original English >> It's great to be back.
### 加美跨境执法与司法权冲突 >> 好的。你今年早些时候告诉时事刊物《The Walrus》，ICE 从加拿大抓走某人的情况并非不可想象。鉴于你在法律和公民自由方面的专业知识，这种情况实际上可能会是什么样子？
Original English >> All right. You told the Walrus, a current affairs publication earlier this year, that a situation where ICE could snatch someone from Canada is not unthinkable. Given your expertise in law and civil liberties, what could that actually look like?
>> 嗯，我的意思是，我认为人们需要明白，美国法院不一定会制裁从加拿大绑架某人前往美国接受审判的行为。加拿大法院会对这种做法有很大异议。所以，如你所知，我们面对的是支准军事化的、未受过适当训练、而且预算看起来深不见底的 ICE。我认为我们确实需要担心这类事情，因为他们很可能会说，我们在美国境内的行为是合法的，我们并不真正在乎加拿大的法律。
Original English >> Well, I mean, I think people need to understand that the American courts would not necessarily sanction kidnapping someone from Canada to face justice in the United States. Canadian courts would have a big problem with it. So, you know, we have a you know, this paramilitary, not properly trained ICE with apparently bottomless budget. And I think we do need to worry about those sorts of things, because they may very well say, well, what we're doing is acting legally in the United States, and we don't really care about Canada's laws.
>> 联邦政府在这里有什么选择？他们能做到吗？
Original English >> What are the options here for the federal government? Can can they do it?
>> 嗯，你要知道，问题在于我们与美国共享这个大陆。不幸的是，我们依赖美国的跨国安全合作。我们正在将许多与瑞安·韦丁（Ryan Wedding）事件相关的人引渡到美国。我们在起诉有组织犯罪方面并不是特别擅长。因此我们真的相当依赖美国。当我是马希尔·阿拉尔（Maher Arar）引渡案研究顾问委员会的一员时，我就看到了这一点。阿拉尔先生在肯尼迪国际机场被带下飞机，送上私人飞机带往叙利亚并遭受酷刑，最终才获释，原因之一就是我们与美国分享了太多信息，而美国利用我们并不准确的原始情报，对他做出了那些事情。因此我的年纪足以让我担心历史会重演。
Original English >> Well, you know, this is the thing is, is that, you know, we share the continent with the United States. Unfortunately, we rely upon American security cooperation. We're extraditing a lot of the people surrounding the Ryan wedding stuff to the United States. We're not particularly good at doing Organized crime prosecutions. And so we're really quite reliant on the United States. I saw this when I was part of the research advisory Board with respect to the Mayor Arar rendition. One of the reasons why Mr. Arar was taken off of a plane at JFK and put on to a private jet and taken to Syria, where he was tortured before eventually being released, was that we shared too much information with the U.S. and the U.S. used our raw intelligence, which happened to be inaccurate, to do what they did to Mr. Arar. And so I'm old enough that I worry about history repeating itself.
>> 在那种情况下。当然，那发生在美方的肯尼迪机场。是的。在加拿大本土可能会是什么样子？从我所了解的情况来看，请给我描述一个场景。你说的是 ICE 官员抓走一名加拿大人，送上飞机并带往美国。
Original English >> In that situation. Of course, that happened at JFK in in the U.S. Yes. What could it look like here in Canada? Give me a scenario where we're talking about ICE officers from from what I'm gathering. You're saying ICE officers put picking a Canadian up and taking them on a plane and taking them over to the States.
>> 嗯，我的意思是，我们知道 ICE 官员进驻在各个加拿大城市。所以可能会是类似的情况。也可能会看起来更像紧急越界追捕（hot pursuit）。可能会发生在边境附近。比如某人是否跨过了边境。我们刚刚经历了一个悲剧案例，一名妇女没有寻求医疗援助，因为她害怕越过边境，因为 ICE 曾就她可能在美国大选中存在违规投票行为向她发出过警告。所以，我的意思是，这很难预料。希望这不会发生。但如果真的发生了，我们会怎么做？我们会提出外交抗议吗？我们会召见大使吗？我们甚至根本没有召见美国大使。而在外交方面，这可以说是升级应对的第一步。但是，我有点担心实际上我们并没有太多办法来应对。
Original English >> Well, I mean, you know, we know that ICE officers are are in various Canadian cities. So it could be something like that. It could also be something that looks more like a hot pursuit. It could be something kind of at the border. Is someone over the border. We just had a, you know, a tragic case where a woman didn't seek medical assistance because she was scared of going over the border because ICE had given her a warning about, you know, maybe having voted irregularly in an American election. So, I mean, it's hard to know. Hopefully it won't happen. But if it did happen, what would we do? Would we register a diplomatic protest? Would we call in the ambassador? We haven't even called in the American ambassador at all. And, you know, that's kind of the, you know, escalation 101 with respect to diplomacy. But, you know, I kind of fear that there's not a whole lot that we could actually do about it.
>> 我想更好地了解这里实地正在发生的事情。我们的一些观众可能会惊讶地得知，ICE 的一个分支机构在加拿大设有五个办事处，其中两个在安大略省的波尔多和渥太华。那就是国土安全调查处（Homeland Security Investigations Group）。关于他们在当地的活动，我们知道些什么？
Original English >> I want to get a better understanding of what's happening on the ground here. Some of our viewers might be surprised to learn that a branch of ICE has five offices in Canada, two here in Ontario, Toronto and Ottawa. That's the Homeland Security Investigations Group. What do we know about their activities here?
>> 嗯，我们所知道的是美国人处于单一行政主导体制下。所以基本上，特朗普可以命令他们做任何想做的事。我们知道他们在非常接近大选的时候，执行了对国会议员奥马尔（Omar）在弗吉尼亚住所的搜查令。我认为这是加拿大警察绝不会做的事情。在加拿大，我们有警察独立性理论。这就是我们的情况。贾斯汀·特鲁多因 SNC-兰万灵（SNC-Lavalin）事件惹上了麻烦。我们不允许总理命令警察去办案。不幸的是，在美国他们可以。而在美国诉特朗普案中，即美国最高法院2024年的裁决，总统在履行其官方职责时拥有完全豁免权。
Original English >> Well, I mean, what we know is the Americans are under a unitary executive. So basically, Trump can order them to do whatever they want. We know that they executed a warrant on represented Representative Omar's home in Virginia, very close to the election. That's something that I don't think Canadian police would ever do. And in Canada, we have theories of police independence. This is what we're. Justin Trudeau got in trouble with SNC-Lavalin. We don't allow the Prime Minister to order the police to do something. Unfortunately, in the U.S. they do. And under U.S. versus Trump, the 2024 decision of the US Supreme Court. The president has complete immunity for anything he does in his official duties.
>> 肯特，自从唐纳德·特朗普开启第二任期以来，ICE 的权力和资金大幅增加。在中期选举临近期间我们看到了什么？
Original English >> Kent ICE has risen vastly in power and funding since Donald Trump began his second term. What have we seen in the lead up to the midterms?
>> 这种情况一直在加剧。坦白讲，免受惩罚的现象也在不断增加。我们刚刚得知亚历克斯·普雷蒂的家人表示，有关方面没有分享任何信息。对于那些观众……
Original English >> It just keeps increasing. And the impunity, frankly, keeps increasing. We just had Alex Prodi's family say that they're not sharing any of the information. For viewers who.
>> 不熟悉亚历克斯的故事的人。
Original English >> Are not familiar with Alex Story.
>> 亚历克斯·普雷蒂是一名护士，就在雷妮在明尼阿波利斯被 ICE 枪杀几周后，他也在明尼阿波利斯被枪杀。他们没有与州政府官员分享这些信息。毕业于耶鲁法学院的 JD·万斯错误地表示，他们享有绝对豁免权。对。所以让我担心的是，招募迅速、培训不足，而且运行在一个他们似乎享有免责豁免权的国内体系中。而且，我认为这是其显着特征之一。我是说，明尼阿波利斯发生的事情让我感到非常不安，以至于我改变了我今年的课程。我正在撰写关于警察和检察官独立性的文章，因为我担心美国正在迅速变成一个不尊重法治的国家。而且，不幸的是，正如皮埃尔·特鲁多所说，我们与大象同眠，大象的一举一动不幸地都在影响着我们。
Original English >> Alex Pretty was the nurse that was gunned down in Minneapolis a couple of weeks after renegade was gunned down by ICE in Minneapolis. And they're not sharing the information with the state officials. JD Vance, graduate of Yale Law School, that he is erroneously said they're absolutely immune. Right. So this is what worries me is that you have quick recruitment, not enough training, and operating in a domestic system where they seem to enjoy impunity. And, you know, this I think is one of the distinguishing features. I mean, I was so disturbed by what happened in Minneapolis that I changed my courses for this year. And I'm writing about police and prosecutorial independence because I fear the United States is very quickly becoming a country that doesn't honour the rule of law. And, you know, unfortunately, as Pierre Trudeau said, we sleep with the elephant and everything the elephant does. Unfortunately influences us.
>> 11月3日你会关注什么？
Original English >> What will you be watching for November 3rd?
>> 嗯，我并不是特别乐观，因为再次强调，根据单一行政长官理论，他们不需要与国会合作。对吧？特朗普不需要与国会合作。因此，我们基本上已经听到了威胁，如果他们失去了参议院，他们就会指责加拿大，对吧？他们可以随心所欲地指责任何人。但再次强调，这造成了一种情况，人们有充分理由担忧可能会出现直接来自特朗普或来自那些试图讨好特朗普的人的报复性行动。
Original English >> Well, you know, I'm not terribly optimistic because again, the theory of the unitary executive, they don't have to work with Congress. Right? Trump doesn't have to work with Congress. And so, you know, we've already had, you know, basically threats that if they lose the Senate, they'll blame Canada, right? You know, they, they they can blame whoever they want. But again, this this creates a situation where there's a reasonable apprehension that there will be vindictive actions directed perhaps directly from Trump or from those who are trying to please Trump.
### 美国法治演变与加拿大执法应对 >> 肯特，我希望你能给我讲讲历史。许多人将当前的美国移民政策追溯到特朗普政府，但许多底层的政策和权力实际上更早就开始了。9/11事件之后发生了什么改变了这一格局？
Original English >> Kent, I'm hoping you can give me a bit of a history lesson. A lot of people trace the current US immigration policies back to the Trump administration, but many of those underlying policies and powers actually started earlier than that. What happened after 9/11 that changed sort of this conversation?
>> 嗯，我认为9/11之后发生的事情，就是我所说的“美国法外主义”（American extra-legalism）。美国拥有世界上最多的律师，但他们得出的结论往往被世界其他地方视为超越法律或违反法治。布什政府确实将其推向了极致。甚至奥巴马政府也实施了大量的定点清除。因此，我认为存在这样一种观念，即有许多律师在向美国政府提供建议，这些建议可能在法律上是准确的，表明“这在我们的体系中是合法的”。但如果你住在加拿大、澳大利亚等国，我认为大多数律师会说，天哪，这是违法的，千万不要这么做。
Original English >> Well, I think what happened after 9/11 is something that I've called American extra legalism. America has the most lawyers in the world, but they often reach results that the rest of the world would think is extra legal or in violation of the rule of law. So the Bush administration really pushed it. Even the Obama administration did a lot of targeted killing. And so I think that there is this sense that there's a lot of lawyers and they're giving advice to American governments that maybe actually legally accurate, saying, this is this is legal in our system. But if you lived in Canada, the states, Australia, I think most lawyers would say, whoa, this is illegal. Don't do it.
>> 我们联系了加拿大联邦公共安全部长加里·阿南达桑加里（Gary Anandasangaree），希望他能上我们的节目谈谈这些问题。他的办公室婉拒了，但确实给我们发来了这份声明。声明写道：“加拿大执法部门全权负责加拿大的执法工作。ICE 在加拿大领土上没有任何权力或管辖权。”你对该声明有什么回应？
Original English >> We reached out to Federal Minister of Public Safety Gary Anandasangaree at for a chance to come on to our show to speak about the issues. His office declined, but they did send us this statement. It reads, Canadian law enforcement is solely responsible for law enforcement in Canada. ICE has no authority or jurisdiction on Canadian soil. What's your response to that statement there?
>> 嗯，问题在于这与不列颠哥伦比亚省的至少一起案件存在冲突，在该案中，法官中止了审理程序，主要依据是美国官员在没有加拿大执法部门监督的情况下开展行动。因此我不怀疑部长的说法，那确实是既定政策。但实际发生的情况是，至少有一项裁决，而且我认为加拿大人应该庆幸我们拥有愿意站出来指出这一点的独立法官。但这起案件之所以能闹上法庭，仅仅是因为存在引渡请求。
Original English >> Well, I mean, the problem is that's in tension with at least one case in British Columbia where a judge has stayed proceedings largely on the basis that American officials were operating without supervision from Canadian law enforcement. So I don't doubt the minister that that's the policy. But what's happening that's there's at least one decision, and I think Canadians should be happy that we have independent judges who are prepared to call this out. But that only got to court because there was an extradition request.
>> 我们能否稍微回顾一下，以便那些不熟悉不列颠哥伦比亚省该案件的人了解？那里发生了什么？
Original English >> Can we back up a little bit for people who are not familiar with that case in British Columbia? What happened there?
>> 嗯，那是一个对恰好身在加拿大的嫌疑人施加很大压力的案件，法官最终以存在不当压力以及缺乏加拿大执法部门的监督为由中止了诉讼程序。再次声明，我并不一定是在指责加拿大执法部门。如果有人决定擅自越权，那他们就会越权行事。但是，最终的结果依然是一样的。法官表示，这是对法治和公平竞争原则的极大冒犯，因此我将中止诉讼程序。这是美国法院根本不会给出的补救措施。美国法院不会给出救济。他们通常也不会判定赔偿金。这是一种补救措施和法治的真空地带。
Original English >> Well, I mean, it was a case where there was a lot of pressure put on a suspect who happened to be in Canada, and the judge eventually stayed proceedings on the basis that there was undue pressure and a lack of supervision from Canadian law enforcement. And again, I mean, you know, I'm not necessarily blaming Canadian law enforcement. If people are going to go rogue, then they're going to go rogue. But, you know, the end result was still the same. And the judge said, this is such an affront to the rule of law and fair play that I'm going to stay proceedings. That's a remedy that American courts, they just don't give. American courts don't give remedies. They don't generally give damages there. It's kind of a remedy and rule of law. Free zone.
>> 如果他们要擅自行动，那么请帮我理解一下，联邦政府应该做些什么来加强我们这里的防御？
Original English >> If they're going rogue, then help me understand here, what should the federal government be doing to strengthen our defences here?
>> 嗯，我认为我们必须投资并建立我们自己的执法能力。很多时候 FBI 替皇家骑警（RCMP）解了围。大家认识到我们必须建立起自己的国家安全和联邦执法能力。所以那是第一步。但即使做到了这一点，我认为我们也无法想象一个不与美国人沟通的世界。我们不希望加拿大执法部门生活在真空中不与对方沟通，但我们需要非常明确的规则，我们需要政治意愿来确保我们按照自己的规则行事，而不是按照他们的规则行事——后者的规则非常非常不同。
Original English >> Well, I mean, I think we have to invest and build up our own capacity of law enforcement. Too often the the FBI has bailed out the RCMP. There's a recognition that we have to build up our national security, federal law enforcement. So that's that's that's the first step. But even if that's done, I think, you know, we can't imagine a world where we don't talk to Americans. We don't want Canadian law enforcement in a bubble, not talking, but we need very clear rules and we need the political will to make sure that we're going to play by the rules of our game, not the rules of their game, which is very, very different.
>> 好的，让我们谈谈这一点。加拿大声名狼藉的软实力。我们在外交层面上是否应该留在谈判桌内？这种对话将走向何方？我们会因为其中一些事情受到惩罚吗？
Original English >> Well, let's talk about that. Canada's infamous soft powers. Should we be in the room diplomatically? Where does that conversation go? Will we will we be penalized for some of this stuff?
>> 是的。我认为我们会受到惩罚，但我不知道我们是否有任何其他选择。我认为我们需要忠于自己的价值观。BC 省最高法院中止诉讼程序的决定表明我们正是这样做的。但是的，无法保证我们不会为此付出代价。
Original English >> Yeah. Well I mean, I think we will be penalized, but I don't know if we have any alternative. I think we need to, you know, be true to our own values. And you know, the decision of the B.C. Supreme Court to stay proceedings shows that we are. But yeah, I mean, there's no guarantees that we will not pay a price for that.
>> 我不想让我们的观众和听众感到害怕和担忧，但我们应该感到担忧吗？你对本省的观众有什么信息要传达？
Original English >> I don't want to leave our viewers and listeners feeling scared and worried here, but should we be concerned? What is the message that you have to our viewers across this province?
>> 嗯，我认为我们需要确保对我们的执法部门有适当的监督，这是我们在马希尔·阿拉尔案和类似案件后建立起来的。我们已经制定了指令，以确保我们不会串通参与酷刑或其他侵犯人权的行为。所以我认为我们需要在这方面进行投入。我们需要在监督方面进行投入，但我们还需要确保自己不必像过去那样依赖美国人。
Original English >> Well, I mean, I think we need to make sure that there is proper oversight of our law enforcement we have in place because of Mayor Arar and similar cases. We have directives in place to ensure that we're not complicit in torture or other human rights abuses. So I think we need to invest in that. We need to invest in oversight, but we also need to make sure that we don't have to rely upon the Americans as much as we have in the past.
>> 肯特，非常感谢你的见解。真的很感谢你抽出时间来到《The Rundown》。
Original English >> Kent, I want to thank you so much for your insights. I really appreciate you taking the time to come to "The Rundown".
>> 非常愉快。谢谢你。
Original English >> It's been fun. Thank you.♪
### 《安全第三国协议》的渊源与法律争议 >> 我们知道 ICE 在加拿大有分支机构，而且在美国他们被指控多项侵犯人权的行为。那么加拿大难道只是一个无辜的旁观者吗？有人说我们与美国签署的《安全第三国协议》正是问题的一部分。奥黛丽·麦克林（Audrey Macklin），非常高兴你能来《The Rundown》。你今天好吗？
Original English >> So we know ICE has a presence here in Canada and that in the US they have been accused of multiple human rights violations. So is Canada just an innocent bystander? Some say our safe third country agreement with the U.S. is part of the problem. Audrey Macklin, it's great to have you on The Rundown. How are you today?
>> 我很好，谢谢。
Original English >> I'm well, thank you.
>> 我想先从最基础的问题开始，因为你在法律背景和国际人权领域做了大量工作。你能帮助我们理解什么是《安全第三国协议》吗？
Original English >> I want to start, because of your background in law, extensive work in international human rights. I want to start with the basics. Can you help us understand what is the safe third country agreement?
>> 要理解这一点，我们必须把时间推得更远。加拿大与其它180个国家一样，都是《难民公约》的签署国。《难民公约》规定每个国家都有义务向到达其边境并符合难民定义的人提供保护。因此，加拿大与许多其他国家一样，承担着这项法律义务。这是加拿大自愿承担的，没有人强迫它。但这当然意味着，加拿大无法预测任何时候会有谁、或者有多少人来寻求难民保护。经过多年，加拿大认定自己其实并不想接纳太多难民申请人，或者叫庇护寻求者。于是它开始寻找阻止他们的方法。它想出的办法之一就是所谓的《安全第三国协议》。这是借鉴了当时欧洲正在发展的类似做法。这到底是什么呢？这是加拿大和美国之间的一项双边协议，规定在两国之间，难民申请人必须在他们抵达的第一个国家申请保护。当时大家都知道，寻求难民保护的人员流动主要是从南向北。也就是说，经由美国前往加拿大寻求难民保护的人数，远远多于反向流动的人数。所以大家都清楚，这是为了让加拿大减少庇护寻求者的数量，而这自然会增加美国的数量。由于这个原因，美国直到9/11之前从未同意过这项协议。9/11事件发生后，美国希望加拿大同意按照美国设定的条件对加美边境的监管做出若干改变。这给了加拿大一个机会来进行所谓的“议题联动”（issue linkage），这基本上是一笔交易：我们同意你们对我们运作加美边境条款施加更大的控制权；作为交换，我们要签署这份《安全第三国协议》。这就是美国同意的原因。也是我们拥有该协议的原因。
Original English >> To understand that, we have to back up even further. Canada, like 180 other countries, is a signatory to the Convention on Refugees. The Refugee Convention obliges each country to provide protection to those people who arrive at their borders and meet the definition of a refugee. So Canada, like many other countries, has this legal obligation. It undertook it voluntarily. Nobody twisted its arm. But what it means, of course, is that Canada can't predict who or how many people will come seeking refugee protection at any time. Over many years, Canada decided that it really didn't want to accept very many refugee claimants or asylum seekers, as they're called. And it started looking for ways to block them. And one of the ways that it came up with is called the Safe Third Country Agreement. This was modelled on a similar practice in Europe that was developing at the time. And what this is, is a bilateral agreement between Canada and the United States that says, as between the two countries, a refugee claimant must ask for protection in the first country they arrive in. Now, they knew at the time that the movement of people seeking refugee protection was primarily from south to north. That is, there were many more people who were coming through the United States to ask for refugee protection in Canada than moving in the opposite direction. And so everybody knew that this was about Canada wanting to reduce its number of asylum seekers, which would, of course, increase the number in the United States. Now, for this reason, the United States never wanted to agree to it until 9/1 And then what happened after 9/11 is that the United States wanted Canada to consent to a number of changes to the regulation of the Canada-U.S. border on terms set by the United States. This gave Canada an opportunity to do what's called issue linkage, which was basically a transaction. We will consent to your greater control over the terms that which by which we operate the Canada-U.S. border. In exchange for that, we want this safe third country agreement. And that's why the United States consented. That's why we have the agreement.
>> 奥黛丽，你能详细说明一下最高法院在2023年就《安全第三国协议》做出了怎样的裁决吗？
Original English >> Audrey, can you break down what the Supreme Court said back in 2023 with respect to the Safe Third Country Agreement.
>> 《安全第三国协议》的准则要求两国都必须对难民是安全的。也就是说，两国都必须是人们能够寻求并获得难民保护的地方。这是一个基本标准。如果加拿大或美国有一方不安全，那就违反了协议条款，该协议应该被终止。在上诉至加拿大最高法院的案件中提出的论点是，美国不是一个可以寻求和享有难民保护的安全国家，为此给出了各种理由。当案件送达加拿大最高法院时，加拿大最高法院推翻了认定美国确实不安全的一审裁决，并判定美国大体上是安全的。如果不是完全安全，我们也有所谓的“安全阀”，人们仍然可以在加拿大获得保护——这一切都是在特朗普总统第二任期开始之前裁定的。
Original English >> The criteria for the Safe Third Country Agreement require that both countries be safe for refugees. That is to say, both countries have to be places where people can seek and enjoy refugee protection. That's a basic criterion. If neither if either Canada or the United States isn't safe, that breaches the terms of the agreement, and the agreement should be terminated. The argument that was made in the case leading up to the Supreme Court of Canada was that the United States was not a safe country to seek and enjoy refugee protection, and there were a variety of reasons given for that. And when it reached the Supreme Court of Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned the first level decision that said, indeed, the United States is not safe and decided that, well, mostly the United States is safe. And if it's not really safe, we have so-called safety valves where people can still get protection in Canada, this was all decided before the beginning of President Trump's second administration.
### 罗克瑟姆路与边境全面协议扩展 >> 我其实想留在2023年那一年，美国和加拿大达成了一项新协议。对于那些穿越非正式过境点寻求庇护的人来说，这意味着什么？当我们谈论这一点时，通常指的是罗克瑟姆路（Roxham Road），它位于纽约州与魁北克省的交界处。但这对于那些过境的人意味着什么？
Original English >> I actually want to stay in that year, 2023, the US and Canada entered a new agreement. What did it mean for people who were crossing, who were seeking refuge, who were crossing through Canada, through well established, unofficial border crossings? We when we talk about that, we really reference Roxham Road. This is in New York, Quebec border. But what did it mean for people who are crossing.
>> 嗯，同样，我想退一步说，在2005年《安全第三国协议》生效之前，每个人都会直接出现在正规的入境口岸。那是有组织的、正式的、安全的，并在那里提出难民申请。在《安全第三国协议》出台之前的警告之一就是，如果你剥夺了人们的这种途径，如果你阻止他们在正规入境口岸寻求难民保护，你就会把他们逼向危险的非正常路线。这些路线对国家不利，还会把人们推向走私者的手中。实际上，这是设立安全第三国协议带来的不良后果。虽然这并没有立即发生，但最终还是发生了。所以在2023年，情况是有好几年的时间里，人们一直通过罗克瑟姆路入境。因为那受到了高度报道，所以他们没有过多依赖走私者。但他们之所以这么做，是因为《安全第三国协议》。后来有关方面做出决定，解决人们在口岸之间入境问题的方法，是将该协议扩大到整个加美边境的全长。这具有讽刺意味，因为非正常入境问题本身就是由《安全第三国协议》引起的。
Original English >> Well, again, I want to back up and say until the safe Third Country Agreement in 2005, everybody would just show up at a port of entry, a regular port of entry. It was Organized, it was formal, it was safe, and make the refugee claims. One of the cautions, one of the warnings that preceded the Safe Third Country agreement was that if you take that away from people, if you block them from seeking refugee protection at a regular port of entry, you will be driving them into irregular routes, which are dangerous. They are not good for the country, and they drive people into the hands of smugglers. In effect, this is a bad consequence of having a safe third country agreement. Well, it didn't happen right away, but eventually it did. And so in in 2023, it was the case that for a few years, people had been entering through Roxham Road. It was highly publicized, so they didn't use smugglers so much. But the reason they did that is because of the safe Third Country agreement. A decision was made that the way to solve this problem of people entering between ports of entry was to extend the agreement across the full length of the Canada-U.S. border. This is ironic because the problem of people entering irregularly was caused by the safe Third Country agreement.
>> 为什么联邦政府会在2023年签署这样的协议？
Original English >> Why would the federal government sign on to an agreement like that in 2023?
>> 嗯，他们发起了这项协议。是加拿大希望将其扩大到整个加美边境。他们必须向美国让步一些东西，才能让美国同意。但重要的是要认识到，最初它没有覆盖边境全长的原因，是因为大家都承认那是不切实际的幻想。你能控制将近9000公里边境的想法是荒谬的。自那以后发生的事情当然有两点。第一，确实正如人们所预测的那样，这成了走私者的创收项目。也就是说，该协议迫使人们通过走私者入境，并且据报道导致花费了超过10亿美元用于加美边境的军事化。
Original English >> Well, they initiated the agreement. It was Canada who wanted to extend it across the full length of the Canada-U.S. border. They had to give something to the United States to get the United States to agree to it. But it's important to realize that the reason it didn't cover the full length of the border initially is because everybody Recognized that that was a fantasy. The idea that you could control nine, almost 9000km of border was ridiculous. And you know, what has happened since, of course, is a couple of things. One, indeed it is what people predicted, which is a make work project for smugglers. That is, the agreement causes people to go through smugglers, and it has apparently led to over $1 billion being spent to militarize the Canada-U.S. border.
### 终止协议的呼吁与官方立场 >> 你最近在公共政策研究所（Institute for Research on Public Policy）发表了一份简报，呼吁加拿大暂停与美国的安全第三国协议，若寻求庇护者的条件没有改善则予以退出。向我们介绍一下你希望看到的内容。
Original English >> You recently published a brief with the Institute for Research on Public Policy, calling for Canada to suspend the safe Third Country agreement with the United States, and then withdraw if conditions for asylum seekers does not approve. Walk us through what you would like to see there.
>> 《安全第三国协议》的前提是两国都是安全的。如果其中一个国家不安全，该协议允许甚至要求各国退出；从这种意义上讲，如果加拿大继续执行一项美国并不安全的协议，加拿大就违反了其自身在《加拿大权利与自由宪章》以及国际法下的义务。因此，极其显而易见、不可否认且无可辩驳的是，美国目前并不是一个可以寻求和获得难民保护的安全国家。因此在逻辑上很自然地，加拿大应该暂停该协议或退出该协议。
Original English >> The Safe Third Country Agreement is premised on the claim that both countries are safe. If one of those countries isn't safe, the agreement permits indeed requires that countries withdraw from it and requires it in this sense that if Canada continues enforcing an agreement where the United States is not safe, Canada is in breach of its own obligations under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and under international law. So it seems abundantly clear, undeniable, irrefutable that the United States is not currently a safe country to seek and obtain refugee protection. So it just follows, as a matter of logic, that Canada should be either suspending the agreement or withdrawing from it.
>> 我们联系了加拿大移民、难民和公民事务部长莉娜·迪亚布（Lena Diab）以征求她的看法。这是她的办公室通过电子邮件回复的内容：“根据《移民与难民保护法》，指定安全第三国的地位会持续受到评估，以确保我们的义务得到履行，并评估其所依据的条件是否继续得到满足。”我应该补充的是，当我们查阅联邦政府网站时，上面也指出美国继续符合指定为安全第三国的要求。你对这份声明怎么看？你对此有何评价？而且联邦政府网站上也写明它继续符合这些要求。
Original English >> We contacted the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lena Diab, for her perspective. Here's what her office had to send back via email. It reads designation as a safe third country is continually assessed for our obligations under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to assess whether the conditions underpinning it continue to be met. I should mention, when we go to the federal government's website as well, it states that the U.S. continues to meet the requirements for designation of a safe third country. What do you make of this statement? What do you what do you make of it? And also on the federal government's website that it continues to meet those requirements as well.
>> 所有证据都恰恰相反。加拿大负有法律义务对美国境内的状况进行持续审查。而他们给你的反馈就是：我们正在对美国的状况进行持续审查。他们没有告诉你的是结果是什么、程序是什么、他们在审查什么证据，以及他们用什么逻辑推理得出美国是安全第三国的结论。显而易见，他们不告诉你这些，是因为人尽皆知美国目前并不是一个寻求并获得难民保护的安全国家。
Original English >> All evidence to the contrary. So Canada has a legal obligation to continuously review conditions in the United States. And what it has fed back to you is we are continuously reviewing the conditions in the United States. What they're not telling you is what the outcome is, what the process is, what evidence they're looking at, and what reasoning they're using to arrive at the conclusion that the United States is a safe third country. So obviously, they're not telling you that because everybody knows that the United States is not a safe country to seek and obtain refugee protection at the moment.
>> 我想我知道这个问题的答案，但你是否知道是什么在阻止联邦政府退出？
Original English >> I think I know the answer to this, but do you have any sense of what's holding the federal government from withdrawing?
>> 他们不希望加拿大接收庇护寻求者和难民。事情就这么简单。正如我所说，达成该协议的目的是为了减少加拿大接收的庇护寻求者数量。现在，《安全第三国协议》的理念是确保两国对难民来说都是安全的，但当时以及现在更为明显的现实动机是，这完全是为了保护加拿大不受难民影响。我的意思是，这是加拿大逃避对难民承担国际法律义务的一种策略。我认为在接下来的日子里，你可能会听到一些人担心加拿大不应该接收难民，而美国不安全的事实对他们来说并不是暂停协议的理由，反而是更加严厉执行协议的理由。事实正是如此。事实上，《安全第三国协议》下的豁免条款——例如，在加拿大有家庭成员的人被允许进入并在加拿大提出难民申请——这项协议豁免在过去一年中被执行得更加严苛、严密和武断。因此，整个意图再次显得不是为了确保加拿大对难民而言是安全的，而是为了防止难民进入加拿大。而美国不安全这一事实，非但没有成为暂停协议的理由，反而正在成为更加严酷执行协议的理由。
Original English >> They don't want asylum seekers and refugees in Canada. It's pretty simple. As I said, the agreement was entered into for the purpose of reducing the number of asylum seekers that Canada would receive. Now, the idea of the Safe Third Country agreement is to ensure that both countries are safe for refugees, but the reality of it was then, and is more clearly the motive now, that it's really all about keeping Canada safe from refugees. And what I mean by that is it is a tactic for Canada to avoid its international legal obligations toward refugees. And I think in coming days, you're probably going to hear from people who worry that Canada is should not be accepting refugees, and that the fact that the United States is unsafe isn't a reason to suspend it for them, it's a reason to enforce it ever more harshly. And that's what's happening. In fact, the exceptions that exist under the Safe Third Country Agreement, for example, people who have family in Canada are allowed to come in and make their refugee claims here. It's an exemption from the agreement has been enforced ever more harshly, stringently and arbitrarily in the last year. So the idea again is seems to be that rather than ensuring that Canada is safe for refugees, there is an intent to make to prevent refugees from coming to Canada. And the fact that the United States is unsafe, rather than being a reason to suspend the agreement, is becoming a reason to enforce it ever more harshly.
### 美国庇护现状与加拿大人道应对 >> 目前是什么导致美国对难民而言是不安全的？
Original English >> What makes the U.S. unsafe right now for refugees?
>> 首先，它暂停或阻断了人们在南部边境提出庇护申请的能力。这直接违反了它在《难民公约》下的义务。它对人们实施武断、不人道、自动化且无限期的拘留，以此强迫他们所谓“自行驱逐”（self-deporting）。那同样是非法的。它将人们运送到南苏丹、斯威士兰、洪都拉斯等第三国，这些国家的人权记录极其糟糕。而这些被送回的人正是面临迫害风险的人。因此这违反了美国自身不将人遣返或送到他们有理由担心遭受迫害或酷刑的地方的义务。美国正在做所有这些事情。这一切都被包裹在种族主义、仇外、反移民的漫骂中，任何能接触社交媒体的人都能看到。
Original English >> So it has suspended or blocked the ability of people to make asylum claims at the southern border. That's in direct violation of its obligations under the Refugee Convention. It is subjecting people to arbitrary, inhumane, automatic, indefinite detention as a way of coercing them into so-called self-deporting. That's also unlawful. It is sending people to third countries like South Sudan, Eswatini, Honduras, countries that have horrific human rights records. And these are people who are being returned, who are at risk of persecution. So that is a violation of the United States own obligation to not send people back to or to places where they have a well-founded fear of persecution or torture. The United States is doing all of those things. It's all wrapped up in racist, xenophobic, anti-immigrant invective that is available to anybody with social media access to see.
>> 对于我们的观众，那些密切关注这些事态发展并希望参与其中的加拿大人、安大略人。在他们关注这一局势、考虑是否付诸行动方面，你有什么话想对他们说？你想对他们传达什么？
Original English >> For our viewers, Canadians, Ontarians who are watching these developments closely and want to get involved. Is there a message that you have for Canadians in terms of, you know, whether they have eyes on this situation, whether they want to actually get involved? What do you say to them?
>> 我能理解为什么有些人会担心，鉴于美国的现状，可能会有很多人想要来到加拿大在这里寻求保护，以此避免在美国遭受实质上的迫害，这可能会引起他们的关切。但我认为我们应该审视作为一个国家去应对、妥善接纳抵境人员的能力。我们无法控制世界上发生的事情去迫使或导致人们逃离。但我们确实能够掌控如何应对和安排对他们的接收。我们在难民安置上展现过这种能力。我们在应对乌克兰战争时展现过这种能力。因此，我们实际上是有办法去应对那些我们无法完全掌控的环境，也就是人们需要逃难并抵达加拿大的情况，并以一种人道、有组织的方式来处理。我认为这才是人们应该思考的方向，而不是采取条件反射式的反应或危机应对模式，把逃离美国恐怖环境的人视作问题，而忽视了美国本身才是问题所在。
Original English >> So I can understand why some people worry that given conditions in the United States, there may be many people who want to come to Canada to seek protection here to avoid essentially persecution in the United States, and that may cause them concern. But I think we should look to our capacity as a country to manage, manage arrivals of people. We don't control what goes on in the world that forces or causes people to flee. But we do have control over what we do to manage or manage our reception of them. We have shown it with resettlement. We have shown it with the response to the Ukrainian war. And so we have ways actually of addressing circumstances that we are not fully in control of, namely the the need for people to flee and their arrival in Canada and do it in a humane, Organized way. And I think that's the direction that people should be thinking about, rather than a kind of knee jerk response or a crisis response that makes people fleeing horrific conditions in the United States a problem rather than the United States itself being the problem.
>> 奥黛丽，非常感谢你抽出时间。非常感谢你对此发表的真知灼见。非常感谢你加入《The Rundown》。
Original English >> Audrey, I want to thank you so much for your time. Thank you so much for your insights on this. Really appreciate you joining us on The Rundown.
>> 非常感谢。
Original English >> Thank you very much.♪
>> 加拿大人对 ICE 究竟应该有多大程度的担忧？请告诉我们。给我们发送电子邮件至 Rundown@TVO.org。或者像往常一样，您可以在我们的 YouTube 页面上给我们留言。在此之前，我们明天见。
Original English >> How concerned should Canadians be about ICE? Let us know. Send us an email to Rundown@TVO.org. Or as always, you can drop us a comment on our YouTube page. Until then, I will see you tomorrow.♪