This article examines the ways in which safe country of origin policies are used as a form of
interdiction by liberal states. This is explored through a case study of Canada’s 2012
immigration reforms and adoption of a “Designated Country of Origin” (DCO) policy to
interrogate the motivation of Canada’s adoption of this safe country of origin policy at this
particular time. I argue that this policy was adopted as a type of visa-replacement which could
discourage the arrival of refugee claimants, mostly European Roma, while still maintaining
positive relations with the EU. This is examined through the perspective of interdiction literature
and related literature on securitization, remote policing, and legal emulation. The case study is
structured around two types of analysis. What was the policy environment in which DCOs were
developed and who were its intended targets, as evidenced by refugee arrivals and the effects of
this policy? I conclude that in the breakdown of visa policies, the motivation for a safe country of
origin policy emerged in the Canadian context as DCOs allowed Canadian officials to discourage
refugee flows of European Roma and also fulfill its diplomatic goals with the EU.