This can have the effect of putting asylum seekers on a cascade of transit countries leading back home to persecution without any examination of the danger. ICCR has argued that some interdiction measures like visa requirements are inappropriate when the human rights situation is know to be severe and Canada is a logical and accessible place to seek refuge. Also, any measures to control unwanted migration must protect the fundamental right to seek asylum and the rights to protection of family members. In practice, most refugees languish in unsafe and inhospitable camps in poor countries for unacceptably long periods of time. The ancient notion of asylum allows a person with a real risk of serious persecution to flee for his or her life to another country.
Interdiction places obstacles in the path of the right to seek and obtain asylum.
Preserving the right is an obligation on countries like Canada under the Organization of American States human rights system. The link between the right and interdiction is described in the case Haitian Interdiction v. US . That interdiction, the turning away of boats of Haitian asylum seekers, denied them the right to seek asylum not only in the US, but in other countries. There was also discrimination in this case. There was interdiction of Haitians but not Cubans.