Canadian Border Tightens Due to Info Sharing

blu3 b0y writes "The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that new information sharing agreements have made it as easy for a Canadian border officer to know the full criminal records of US citizens as it is for their local police. As a result, Canadian officials are turning away American visitors for ancient minor convictions, including 30-year-old shoplifting and minor drug possession convictions. Officials claim it's always been illegal to enter Canada with such convictions without getting special dispensation, they just had no good way of knowing about them until recent security agreements allowed access. One attorney speculates it's not long before this information will be shared with other countries as well, causing immigration hassles worldwide."

Re:Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to have to correct you, but it has been impossible for foreigners with minor convictions for things like drugs possession to travel to the USA for years.

Re:Funny

[morgan_greywolf]

Other countries can turn our people away, but we can't seem to turn other counties people away

Hm. I live next to a Canadian border. Believe me, U.S. Customs/DHS turns people away. A friend of mine is a permanent U.S. resident, but is not a U.S. citizen. He was born in Canada. But, he's not a Canadian citizen either as he was born on a Native American reservation in Canada. Not too long after the border restrictions went into place, he visited Canada and got stuck at U.S. customs -- Canadian customs never checked his residency/citizenship status on the way in (which isn't a surprise, since Canadian Customs is very lax in checking IDs), but on the way back in he didn't have one of the then-required documents to prove citizenship (because he doesn't have any). I think finally they just got sick of him and let him go.

Re:The good & the bad

[Hemogoblin]

FYI, I'm a Immmigration Officer with CBSA. That said, this message is my personal opinion and I do not represent the government. This scale currently exists [see Immigration Refugee Act, A36(1)(b) and A36(2)(b)]. If the crime you committed is equivalent to an indictable Canadian offence (ie not a misdemeanor), then you're inadmissable but its not impossible to get entry. Permits and pardons will allow you into the country. If you commit an offence which would give more than 10 years in prison (ie manslaughter, theft over $5000, etc), then you're inadmissible and its damn hard to get a permit into the country. That is, unless you're a celebrity. Bloody government. Also, if the offence was more than 10 years ago, you didn't commit any OTHER offences, and the offence was the first category, its as if the offence never existed. This article is bullshit media talking, what the hell do they know? Marijuanna possession isn't even an indictable offence in Canada unless its more than 22g. If anything, the guy was inadmissible for the DUI from seven years ago. (recall the 10 year rule, and he has at least two offences). I don't know anything else about this guy except from the article, but our laws are pretty misrepresented in the article.

Re:This stuff happening? at the CANADIAN border?

[mikkelm]

Thank the Schengen [wikipedia.org] agreement.

Hysteria?

[Anonymous Coward]

UK, huh?
Borders between mainland countries really are open, and getting more so (i.e. you can now go to new EU countries like Slovenia with zero border controls). Airports do tend to be locked down, but you can drive from country to country with no problems.

Even as a UK citizen you don't have to declare your goods - every airport I've been through has an "EU citizens" channel where you don't pass customs. You do have to present an ID card/passport when you fly, but there are the exact same controls on flights internal to a country. Movement within the EU is almost as free as within an individual EU country, also sadly we haven't been able to legislate away the English Channel which is the real inconvenience in travelling to/from Britain.

Re:This just in: your actions may have implication

[Forseti]

Remember, until now people could get into Canada even having done bad things.

Two arguments: One - No they legally couldn't. The laws were always there, they just had no way of being enforced. You're still not supposed to lie to immigration. Two - They can still get in now, they just have to contact the Canadian embassy ahead of time (like they always should have) and ask for dispensation. If the offense was relatively minor or took place long ago, I'm sure they'll get permission to at least visit the country, if not immigrate here permanently. In your opinion, who's better situated than the federal government to enforce border control, if such control is needed? (Which it is, at least to a minimal degree, if only to keep the USA quiet.)

Re:WOW

[xtracto]

FTFS:
causing immigration hassles worldwide."

WOW I say, USA _*IS*_ far worst than Canada. My Grandmother went on vacation to USA around the 1970s, twenty years after that, an Aunt went on vacations and just when she was returning (at a USA airport) they detained her *and* interrogated her (with the typical 'yo-muthafucka' Yanki bad ass mood) about my Grandmother. According to *their* records my Grandmother was *still* in the USA, as an Illegal and they in some way found (how much information can the USA gather about everyone?) that my aunt and her were related. So they didnt want to let her return on the basis the she knew where my Grandmother was "hiding" in the USA.

After dealing with those asses for more than 4 hours they let her return... some time after that talking with the family we came to realize that my Grandmother just did not returned some kind of piece of paper when she got out of USA.

How is that for a police state?

So fucking what, USA wants to get information from every passenger, hassle with eye scan, finger print scan and all other kinds of shit to every other country but they whine and cry when someone does not let REAL CRIMINALS (shoplifting, raping, whatever, they are convicted, they are criminals) into their countries. Cry me a river.

This reminded me of one of Moore's documentaries where he asks how many murders had there been in a Canadian city *in the border* with USA... the answer? just one... oh, and the criminal was a Yanki who crossed the border! YAY!

NMMDIDGAF.

Opinion from an Immigration Officer

[Hemogoblin]

FYI, I'm a Immmigration Officer with CBSA. That said, this message is my personal opinion and I do not represent the government.

I'm tagging this article FUD, because the writer is spreading fake information about Canada to try and scare people away. I have mod points, but I think its important that I try and stop the spread of this misinformation.

It is not true that Canada will turn someone away for a single minor offence 30 years ago. Only serious offences will make someone inadmissible to Canada. There is a very specific scale used to determine how serious a criminal offence is. First of all, the seriousness of the crime in your home country doesn't matter. We have to equate the offence to a CANADIAN law. For example, DUI's are routine and brushed off in the USA, whereas inn Canada you can get up to 5 years in prison for a 2nd or 3rd DUI.

This scale is as follows: [refer to Immigration Refugee Act, A36(1)(b) and A36(2)(b)]. If the crime you committed is equivalent to an indictable Canadian offence (ie not a misdemeanor), then you're inadmissable but its not impossible to get entry. Permits and pardons will allow you into the country. If you commit an offence which would give more than 10 years in prison (ie manslaughter, theft over $5000, etc), then you're inadmissible and its damn hard to get a permit into the country. That is, unless you're a celebrity. Bloody government.

In addition to the above, after a certain length of time an inadmissible person under the first category can be "deemed rehabilitated". The criteria is a little complicated, but in most cases a single indictable offence will be "dismissed" after ten years.

So refering to the above, you'll see the article writer doesn't know anything about our laws. I don't have any personal experience with the person refered to in the article, but I can infer a few things. For example, I'd say the person was inadmissible for the DUI from seven years ago. Its an indictable offence (ie serious), and it was less than 10 years ago. He also had other criminal convictions, which make rehabilitation impossible. Of course, he could be inadmissible for other things as well (other convictions he didn't mention, for example).

Given the above, its FUD to say he wasn't let into Canada for the marijuanna possession from 30 years ago. Marijuanna possession isn't even an indictable offence in Canada unless its more than 22g, so a single conviction of that offence wouldn't make him inadmissible.

I'd like to remind everyone that Canada's Immigration laws haven't changed in the last few years. There is nothing "new" referred to in this article. Our laws have always forbidden convicted criminals from entering the country, and we've had access to NCIC for YEARS. Stop spreading FUD about my country!

Finally, if thinking of coming to Canada and have a criminal conviction, contact the Canadian consulate nearest you. They can tell you wether your offence is serious or not. I suggest you fax, write, or go in person since they rarely answer phone calls.

Re:The good & the bad

[Hemogoblin]

Do NOT take any action on this advice. An officer obviously can't make a judgement on a persons inadmissibility except when they're seeking entry. Different officers might equate offences differently because there is a little grey area. This might give you a general idea however. If you're planning on coming to Canada, contact the nearest Canadian Consulate. Fax, write, or go in person since they rarely answer the phone.

It depends on wether you were convicted, had deferred adjudication, etc. You'll have to look this up on the court records, since most people don't know offhand.

Assuming you were convicted, the DWAI on its own is an indictable offence. It has been more than ten years, and normally you'd be fine. However, that mischief offence could screw you over. If you were convicted of it, you've been convicted of "two or more offences not arising out of a single occurance". So, you're inadmissible under the A36(2)(b), which is the lesser section.

See "A36(2) A foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of criminality for (b) having been convicted outside Canada of an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament, or of two offences not arising out of a single occurrence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute offences under an Act of Parliament;"
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowDoc/cs/I-2.5/bo-g a:s_7::bo-ga:l_1//en?page=3&isPrinting=false#codes e:36 [justice.gc.ca]

To come to Canada, you'd need a waiver of rehabilitation. Its a piece of paper that says the offence is no longer an issue and you're not dangerous, and you can come to Canada as often as you want. A Canadian consulate, and some ports of entry can give you one of these. Alternatively, you could get a temporary resident permit, which is the same thing but is only good for one trip. They cost the same, so the first one is usually smarter to get.

Re:Funny

[C_L_Lk]

80s? I did this last week with the exact same number of questions at the crossing between Johnstown/Ogdensburg over the St. Lawrence river. I'm a US citizen, with Canadian permanant residency, living in Canada, with a Canadian drivers licence and car with Ontario plates. On the way over at the US border crossing:
US Guard: Citizenship?
Me: "US"
Him "You currently live in Canada?"
Me: "Yes"
Him: "Purpose of visit to US?"
Me: " Some shopping and a tank of gas"
Him "have a nice day" (no request for ID, or other information)
On the return trip arrpoximately 2 hours later:
Canadian Guard: Citizenship?
Me: "US"
Him: "Your are in a canadian vehicle? Do you live here"
Me: "Yes, I just went shopping in Ogdensburg and got a tank of gas"
Him: "that was the purpose of your visit to the US?"
Me: "Yes"
Him: "Have a nice day"

Didn't seem all that bad to me... neither asked for ID, passport, permanent resident card, drivers licence, birth certificate, or anything else. I'm sure they ran my licence plate through their automated system and saw I was only gone 2 hours. They didn't ask how much I bought while I was in the US, if I had anything to declare, or for that matter if I had any prohibited items, etc. (Usually they ask about alcohol/duty free to declare, mace, pepper spray, firearms, and sometimes other things).

Now mind you - this was a wednesday at 2 in the afternoon, I was the only car at the border crossing going either direction, and I am a middle 30's white male driving a family sedan - however - it still felt like the 'ol days - in my opinion.

Re:Tit for Tat

[Comboman]

And I doubt there's any hint of "revenge" here - I'm sure both Governments are loving being able to tighten controls and share information.

You're half right, it's not about revenge. When the rules change on one side of the border, that forces a change on the other side. Canada would love to let in American tourists without a passport as we have for the last 50 years. The problem is, when those Americans tried to get back across through US customs, they would be asked for their passport and wouldn't be allowed back home without one. It may seem inconvenient to be turned back at the border by Canadian customs at the start of your vacation, but it would be a lot more inconvenient to find yourself stuck in Canada at the end of your vacation, looking for the nearest US consulate office to apply for an emergency passport and then waiting for it to arrive.

Re:A taste of their own medicin

[Alioth]

The US is actually worse - merely being *arrested* for a drugs offence means you no longer are elegible for the visa waiver program. That is to say - the Police pick you up on suspicion of having marijuana, and it was just a case of mistaken identity, and they release you 30 minutes later with no charge after realising their mistake - you are now permanently banned from using the visa waiver program to enter the US and have to apply (via the mindnumbingly bureaucratic process) for a nonimmigrant visa. Even though you were guilty of nothing and mistakenly arrested because the police officer thought you were someone else.

Actually, the real WTF is that there isn't the free movement of both people AND goods between the US and Canada like there is between countries of the European Union.

Re:The good & the bad

[Hemogoblin]

Actually, border control is that nuanced an art. The regular "border officers" (ie customs officers) don't go through your entire record at the booth. They send you to the immigration office where we look at each case individually, and personally look up what the offence would equate to. Its not that hard actually, since there are really only around 20 common offences and we have them memorized. We've been evaluating these offences for years, so unless anything really obscure comes up somebody has probably dealt with it before.

You can be criminally inadmissible 3 ways. I'll summarize, but heres the link http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/I-2.5/bo-g a:l_1-gb:l_4//en#anchorbo-ga:l_1-gb:l_4 [justice.gc.ca]

1) A36(2) Being convicted of an indictable offence. This includes things such as simple assault, theft under $5000, DUIs, etc.
2) A36(2) Being convicted of multiple offences, not arising from a single occurance.
3) A36(1) Being convicted of an indictable offence, punishable with 10 or more years in prison. This includes aggravated assault, murder, theft over $5000, and other serious stuff.

These do NOT include things like parking violations, or minor criminal code offences. Those minor offences are "summary offences", and are not "indictable." These offences won't make someone inadmissible. Seattle website is too vague, which makes it look like there is room for interpretation. Its actually laid out very clearly. If you have any doubt about an offence, contact the nearest Canadian Consulate by fax or in person.

All the 36(1) and (2) stuff is pretty black and white. There are a few offences that can be interpretted in slightly different ways, but if you have these offences on your record you probably already know you'll have a problem.

Re:Know Your Place

[VShael]

I see from your Eircom addy that you're Irish.
Well, Ireland is not a member of the Schengen Agreement.
For the vast majority of Europeans, who actually live on the mainland, there is complete and total freedom of movement, without the need for passports.

I live and work in Brussels, but often drive across the border to Holland or France or Germany, with only a sign on the road to tell me when I've passed over.

Ditto for trains. I can walk down the road to Gare du Midi, and hop on an international train going to Madrid, or Lisbon without having to show a passport.

Please do not take the experience of your island based 4 million strong population, and attempt to extrapolate the experience of 250 million Europeans.

Re:Opinion from an Immigration Officer

[Hemogoblin]

I assume you're referring to "Members of Inadmissible Classes include those who have been convicted of MINOR OFFENCES (including shoplifting...)..."

Technically, what I said in my original post was correct, but I apologize for not making it clearer.

What I said in the original post was that a SINGLE minor offence will not make you inadmissible. If you have been convicted of MULTIPLE minor offences, then you are inadmissible. For example, if you have two shoplifting offences, then you are inadmissible.

In summary, you're criminally inadmissible if...
1) You were convicted of multiple minor (summary) offences, not arising out of the same occurance.
2) You were convicted of any indictable offences. If the offence was serious, you have less chance of obtaining temporary entry.

See section 36(2)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for more info.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowDoc/cs/I-2.5/bo-g a:s_7::bo-ga:l_1//en?page=3&isPrinting=false#codes e:36 [justice.gc.ca]

Does that clear things up?

Re:Canada is just giving it back.

[statusbar]

These border limitations also apply going both directions between US and Canada to people who were charged with a crime and then had the charge dropped - no conviction necessary.

--jeffk++