Canadian Border Tightens Due to Info Sharing 448
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."
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 ga
So... (Score:3, Funny)
Look at the bright side (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Look at the bright side (Score:5, Funny)
That's a great idea. (Score:3, Funny)
Does anyone know where you can rent a Pinto or Propane truck?
Re:Look at the bright side (Score:4, Interesting)
Agent: "Sir, according to our records obtained from the Minnesota State Patrol, you were stopped for DUI in April 2006. When you were asked if you had any prior incidents and you said, 'no' you lied. You are not to lie to a Border Patrol Agent at any time."
Crosser: "I haven't been convicted yet."
Agent: "I didn't ask if you were convicted."
---
Agent: "Sir, according to our records you were convicted of lewd conduct and indecent exposure in March of 2006. When I asked you if you had any prior convictions and you said, 'no', you lied. You are not to lie to a Border Patrol Agent at any time."
Crosser: "It was reduced to a lesser charge!"
Agent: "I asked if you had any prior incidents."
---
This went on for the next individual as well (I don't remember what he did wrong). After that they were released and permitted to go on to their next destination which was a wedding in Winnipeg. For us, they called us one by one into a back interview room and asked us a bunch of questions about our educational background and work history. I actually felt uncomfortable with some of the questions but answered them anyway.
They checked our passports and birth certificates and while the previous group had convictions and lied and we didn't, we still had our car searched for another 30 minutes before being allowed to move along.
So, even though Bush shouldn't be allowed into the country, these fools were. Bleh.
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to Canada! (Score:5, Interesting)
Hah!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
He meant "wipe the slate clean" with Canada. Referring to their rehabilitation procedures. Which, reading about, sounds like I wouldn't bother with and just visit North Dakota instead -- but that's beside the point. Who am I kidding, everything you think is in ND is actually in South Dakota.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I am not offended. (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't bother me at all.
Doesn't offend me at all.
On my second flight into Montreal... (Score:2)
...the immigration/customs guy was rather obnoxious in wanting to know why I was in Canada and where I was going.
It wasn't a big thing, but I also haven't been back. Rude border security has a direct deleterious effect on tourism dollars. Go figure.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I would invariably get asked why I'm visiting the States and for how long. Why do I have to have a reason to go home? I could understand if they wanted to know what I was doing in Canada, but I can do anything I want for however long I want in the States. I always w
This just in: your actions may have implications (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This just in: your actions may have implication (Score:4, Insightful)
If you don't like it, well, don't do things to limit that option for yourself, or visit some other place. Their country, their rules.
Such a statement cedes an awful lot of power to a national government. Remember, until now people could get into Canada even having done bad things. The 60-year-old who got caught driving drunk back in 1980 and has already repaid society for it can't undo what he once did. If a Canadian company wants to hire him, or Canadian relatives want him to visit, what can they do? Lobby the government to start being more lenient?
This will ultimately lead to even more privacy-violating information sharing as potential employers demand to know about any minor misdemeanor a potential hire has ever committed. They'll have to do this in order to be sure that their new employee doesn't get turned away at the border, but in the process the principle of being able to repay one's debts to society after a transgression will be even further eroded.
Fifty years ago these incidents went into dusty file boxes in the back closet of city hall; now they're in every border agent's database and are impeding people's movement. Should our societies consider mitigating these previously-impossible long term effects by shortening prison terms and lowering fines? Politically, how can one argue that without being seen as soft on crime?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Only because up until now, the knowledge the the DWI wasn't readily available to the
Re: (Score:2)
It is short-sighted and foolish to only fight against a law/policy when it is enforced.
Well, yes. But if you've been visiting Canada regularly up to now despite having stolen a bicycle (or whatever) in your youth, and have never been denied entry before, you and your Canadian friends (who would be doing the fighting) are probably not going to be aware of these laws and policies.
Suddenly enforcing them now and claiming that they've been excessively lenient all those times in the past (and just not tell
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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 coun
Re: (Score:2)
Such a statement cedes an awful lot of power to a national government.Like the power to secure its own borders? I don't really think this is ceding anything, especially since we are talking about foreign nationals and not citizens of that nation.
This will ultimately lead to even more privacy-violating information sharing as potential employers demand to know about any minor misdemeanor a potential hire has ever committed. They'll have to do this in order to be sure that their new employee doesn't get tur
Re:This just in: your actions may have implication (Score:5, Insightful)
That is a power that our national government has always had, you're just operating under the belief that it wasn't so. Much like the US applies their rules on inbound people to everyone else -- hell, the US has extended it to their entire airspace. For that reason, myself and a lot of other Canadians (and people from around the globe) are choosing not to enter the US -- they might do more than just deny you entry; they might act on legal advice from Gonzales which says we can be arbitrarily detained without a lawyer on the whim of the immigration people. That whole Habeus Corpus thing.
It has apparently been illegal for people with certain criminal convictions etc to enter the country for quite some time. They just haven't been able to track it. When Martha Stewart wanted to come to Canada she had to get a piece of paper from the government which gave her permission despite her criminal conviction. I believe 50 cent has had to do this before (or, was at least threatened with it, don't remember the specifics). They're just more high-profile and it was easier to identify.
This is not some new, unchecked power of a 'national government' -- this is what has always been true -- individual nations (including neighbors) can choose who they choose to allow entry and who they deny it to. You don't have a constitutional right to enter Canada, and I don't have a Charter right to enter the US. It simply doesn't work that way.
If anything, it is new US requirements for information sharing and security which is providing the Canadian agencies with enough information to bar entry. I'm sure this is also reciprocal, and there are probably more Canadians being turned away at the US border because of the exact same program. This is a side effect, not a primary event.
Again, don't blame Canada for that one. We're responding to US government demands that we provide that information, and the US has extended their laws so that information collected in Canada by American companies can be fed back to the US government -- against our privacy laws. This is happening all aroound us, and while I agree it sucks, we're not the ones driving this.
You probably can't. The US stance on certain things is very rigid -- and, some of those policies are coming north. The US has had mandatory minimum sentencing for many crimes for quite a while, and there are noises being made about it up here in the Great White North. We try to fight such things, but, it often seems futile since the US just steam-rolls over everyone involved anyway.
Don't naively believe that we're abusing our power to decide who we allow to enter our country. The American politicians are probably still saying we don't do enough to keep people out of our country.
Cheers
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Again, don't blame Canada for that one. We're responding to US government demands that we provide that information,
Don't respond to it or you *are* to blame. What kind of a idiotic argument is that?!?
and the US has extended their laws so that information collected in Canada by American companies can be fed back to the US government -- against our privacy laws. This is happening all around us, and while I agree it sucks, we're not the ones driving this.
So don't break your own fucking laws or you are to blam
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, I think we have already passed the tipping point.
From the news I see and hear, and the conversations I have with other people, it looks like the concept of "paying your debt to society" has been relegated to history. Even otherwise intelligent people I talk to seem to have come to the opinion that once you commit a crime, any crime, you should have to be responsible for that act for the rest of your life. We have somehow come to the point that no matter what punishment you endure, you wi
Re: (Score:2)
American customs agents like to hassle people about things as silly as their occupation or education. I have a friend who was almost turned away because she was a social worker... the agent thought she was going to the US to try and find a job. Why would a social worker want to leave Cana
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't like it, well, don't do things to limit that option for yourself, or visit some other place. Their country, their rules.
I'm sorry, I think I missed the part where it said that every Canadian agrees with these rules?
Apparently I did as well, because I neither said it, quoted it, or thought that had anything to do with it. Why bring it up?
This argument pops up everytime there are restrictions on entry (e.g., fingerprinting). Not everyone is a xenophobe you know - if my own country were to introduce such things, I'd be against it, yet the fact that it's "my country" would then strangely give me little say in the matter.
Let me be more clear. If you want to visit some place, you probably want to find out what the rules are. Just as a general rule of thumb so you don't get surprised, right? Like, if you come in to my house, don't think that lighting up inside is acceptable, because it isn't. The Canadian government has decided that they feel that this sort of thing matters, and are taking steps a
Re: (Score:2)
That argument presumes that the conviction was justified. There is no accounting for bad laws (don't even try to tell me there's no such thing) or for convictions for things which are illegal in American but not in Canada! There are people, senior citizens now, who are still alive and lived in a time when black people could be arrested for going the wrong place. Sodomy laws. Protest arrests.
Wow. So many people reading so much into my post that I didn't write.
There is also the fact that certain classes of people; minorities and the poor to be specific, are statistically much more likely to receive criminal convictions for their first drug case than for wealthy whites charged with the same crime. So there is a large group of more "respectable" people who were similarly irresponsible but got the charges wiped off their record and have more rights for no valid reason. An irrational bias clearly colors the enforcement of the law. I don't think its so simple as to say anyone with a record gets what they deserve.
Well, I think it's fair to say, however, that if you have a record, you'll want to know about these limitations if you want to travel to Canada. And, sorry, but for every person who has been "wronged by the man" or whatever, there's probably a hundred or a thousand who deserve what's on their record.
A taste of their own medicin (Score:4, Insightful)
The US has been doing the same to many foreign visitors for years, while traffic in the other direction has always been quite open.
The US doesn't allow people who have committed minor offences as well, except with special clearance (and I don't think getting one is easy, not sure about this but it would seem only logical that the US would make this hard). Now some countries are deciding to do apply this rule as well, seems only fair...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, Canada will get a lot less touri
Minor nitpick with "visum" (Score:2)
It comes by way of French from the Latin carta visa, an ablative absolute meaning "the card having been read,
Visum is a "vision", and unrelated etymologically.
The form visa itself is one way of making a feminine noun out of the verb visere, in the same way amata means "beloved (female)". Its plural would be visae in the Nom and visas in the Acc.
On that basis, I do not believe your use of visum is justified.
Re:A taste of their own medicin (Score:5, Insightful)
It does sound like payback to me. Not that the US doesn't deserve it, especially with our jackass of a president, but Canada might be cutting off their nose to spite their face. Denying 50- and 60-something baby-boomers tourist entry into Canada because they toked up 30 or 40 years ago is not a good idea economically.
This quote is cute:
IOW, they've been "getting away" with spending tourist dollars for 20 years without interference. I doubt that Canadian hotelliers, restauranteurs and merchants had any moral qualms to selling rooms, meals and souvenirs to Americans "criminals" during that time.
This has much more general implications. If things go as the article says, and international tourists from all over the world are turned away from their foreign destinations, you can bet that industries that cater to this business will get the laws changed in their favor and relax restrictions on jaywalkers.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, I don't see the US backing off their border restrictions anytime soon.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
hmm (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Online? (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
I limit my theft to popsicles.
No, they aren't vanilla.
The good & the bad (Score:2, Interesting)
Getting denied entry because of a single life mistake you made 30 years ago when you were young, foolish and smoking too much pot = Bad
Mr. Obvious says: There should be some International agreed upon time limits as to how far back "relatively minor" crime convictions can go before you are denied entry. Better yet, have a scale. I.e. If you were a Nazi leader 40 years ago... yes you are still fucked. If you killed someone by accident while drin
Re: (Score:2)
Pardoned for manslaughter? Fuck that! That's exactly the kind of criminal we don't need in Canada.
Re:The good & the bad (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The good & the bad (Score:4, Informative)
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-
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:The good & the bad (Score:4, Informative)
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-
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: (Score:2)
Tit for Tat (Score:5, Insightful)
This article isn't about Canada being a police state.
It was the US that wanted Canadians to have passports to enter the US. Canada implemented the same requirement for Americans entering Canada.
It was the US that wanted the sharing of criminal records for Canadians travelling into the United States, so Canada implemented the same thing for all Americans visiting Canada.
It was the US that instituted the tightened security measures, Canada just followed suit.
Canadians are already being screened this way entering the US, why are Americans upset when Canada starts doing the same thing?
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC, the news coverage about these decisions said the point was to have the same rules on both sides of the border to reduce the confusion about when/how to apply the rules.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Tit for Tat (Score:5, Insightful)
For instance, right now there's 9 year old Canadian child being held in jail in Texas. His crime? His parents are Iranian. They were on their way to Canada and were planning on staying there as political refugess from Iran (the parents are not presently Canadian, but were living there illegally a few years ago). On their way to Canada, on a flight that was not supposed to even touch down in America, the plane landed in Texas because a passenger had a heart attack. Somehow security focuses on this family (surprise, surprise) and they get held. Now, they wouldn't have just been let in freely in Canada, but they wouldn't be in jail either. Especially not a child (he's Canadian anyway). They would be allowed to apply and go through the procedure of claiming refugee status as everyone else does. So I just don't think the two countries can agree on who should be let in, and I'd place the blame on incidents like this which the US has committed. Afterall, we haven't locked up any 9 year old American children.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Tit for Tat (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
As a frequent traveler (Score:3, Interesting)
As a frequent traveler I applied for a Canadian passport last October and I haven't gotten it yet... WTF
The worlds two biggest partners with the longest unprotected border have politicians that can't get along. We citizens should kick them both, but Ottawa needs a double kick.
Why not let US border patrol have access to Canadian DMV records and the other way around? Why do we need passports at all? So the terrorists can steal and forge them? Canadian DMV records are some of the best in the world.
North American computers have the info, they know all about anyone who has been here for awhile. When I returned to Alberta some years ago after being gone a long time, I was reactivated bridging my history from when I lived here before.
As for those getting turned back for once upon a time breaking the law, then don't break the law.
So for the politicians I say, Get off your bickering sorry asses and get along. Stop posturing for control and use some common sense will ya?
Re: (Score:2)
Given what they tend to do with information, I'd actually prefer the government share less info with the US, not more, thanks.
Responsibility for your Actions (Score:2)
Remember way back when when your parents (hopefully) told you that you have to suffer the consequences for your actions, well, there isn't a time limit on those consequences. We see at least once a year in the news that someone who committed a c
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because two wrongs don't make a right.
Government A makes thinks worse for Citizen B. Government C responds by making things worse for Citizen D. Nope, I don't see how that's fair - Governments A and C end up increasing their powers, and citizens B an
Re: (Score:2)
In your example of Governments A & C, Citizens B & D, you end up with the following possibilities.
Government A imposes restrictions on Citizen B. Gvt. C does nothing. Citizen D remains blissfully unaware of the position of his Government, and wonders why they get a less than warm welcome in some places. Gvt. A, then receives the message that it can place all the restrictions it wants, as nobody has yet stood up and do
Re: (Score:2)
So, besides you, who benefits from everlasting and unlimited consequences and retribution for minor crimes?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying you actually listened to your parents? Sheesh. What are you, some kinda nerd?
Well now... (Score:5, Funny)
... as someone who was recently refused a visitors' visa to the USA because I've worked 1 month in Saudi Arabia as a CRM consultant, I can't help a grin followed by an "oh bummer!"
I guess that the "keep our country to the locals" isn't so nice when you're on the other side of the border, isn't it?
Please mod me flamebait, but I really couldn't help it :D
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing by your name here that you are Brazilian as Carvalhao is definitely a Portuguese language name. Portuguese citizens are part of the Visa Waiver program which allows entry to the US without a visa for stays of 90 days or less. Brazilians do need visas. I'm sure it didn't help at all that you worked in Saudi Arabia
As an American, this is good news (Score:5, Interesting)
You foreigners have been way too cowardly, refusing standing up for yourselves against my government. Get some fucking backbone.
Border Security kills Canadian tourism... (Score:2, Insightful)
Know Your Place (Score:5, Insightful)
Technically, there is also free movement of people, but this is a sham. Even before the 9/11 hysteria began, you still needed a passport to go just about anywhere. Every time I travel in this suppossedly free union, I have to present my papers and declare my goods etc. The stated purpose for these controls is protecting us from terrorism, immigration, criminals, etc, etc, etc. The reality is that government want to show that we only enter and leave countries by their say so. Plebs have no right of free travel. (Big businessmen and polititians on the other hand, regularly find themselves exempt from border controls).
I knew someone worked for a short time in Saudi Arabia. When he arrived they slapped a sticker over his passport with the name of the company he worked in english and arabic. The message was clear. He was a vassal of that company, and the saudi government. To leave that country, he needed an exit visa. If the company wasn't prepared to give him one, he was trapped there. If the company no longer wished to employ him, his visa would expire and he would be there illegally. He was completely at the mercy of the company he worked for.
That is what passports and visas are for. The passport is a direct descendant of the lords chit, when back in the middle ages you needed your lords permission to leave his demense. In modern times we have replaces "lord" with government, or in saudi arabia, "company". Passports do not exist to protect us. They exist to control us. Governments yearn for the day when every citizen must have their papers, when we are once again serfs for private companies.
Governments are beginning to share data in this way not because their own situation has changed, but because the situation of the companies people work for has changed. Companies are now global, and they need to move their loyal employees around with them, and restrict the movement of those who displease them. Troublemakers or other undesirables are best kept hemmed in by petty rules and restrictions. Blemishes on the records of the favoured will be ignored. Parking tickets on the record of union organisers will result in revocation of their chits.
In all likelihood, our society will become like saudi arabia long before saudi arabia becomes like us. Western society is regressing, and increasingly stringent border and passport controls are a symptom of that regression.
Hysteria? (Score:2, Informative)
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 fligh
Re: (Score:2)
You can freely move anywhere.
More information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Agreement [wikipedia.org]
If you are from a Schengen country. You only need your ID card with you.
If you aren't you need your passport. (ex: British citizen)
If you country requires a visa. You only need a Visa once to visit these countries.
I don't know where you are
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ehmm.. In short: You need a passport
Welcome to the North American Union (Score:2, Funny)
populations stay on the plantation?
"Boy why would you want to go up north anyway? Who would be to keep you
and feed you?"
We were warned. (Score:2, Funny)
Opinion from an Immigration Officer (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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 summa
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
That's because WE'RE NUMBER 1! WOOO GO USA!
GET A BRAIN, MORANS! [sic.]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Funny (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect that you may mean that's been illegal, not impossible.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 Can
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of security do they have in Canada? If this is how they deal with people crossing the border who don't have the required identification, then I'm very surprised something major hasn't happened there. However, Canada hasn't pissed off the world either so they don't have to worry as much...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Funny (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm with you so far. I lived on the Canadian side of the US-Canada border for a long while, and had a job where we had to travel to the states often. People get turned back all the time, even without criminal records.
So, green card then? Or American-Indian status? Aren't any other PERMANENT visa types that I'm aware of...
Now that just doesn't make any sense. If he was born in Canada, Indian or not, he's a Canadian citizen. Canadians are even allowed dual citizenship! Plus, if he has Aboriginal status, which requires more than just being born on a reservation, then he has rights to freely cross the US-Canada border in any direction and immigration & customs on either side can't do shit to stop him, as long as he has his Aboriginal ID with him. Otherwise, according to you, he had a green card because of him permanent resident status. So, isn't this just a question of someone trying to cross the border without ID (never a good idea) rather than some ridiculous citizenship issue?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. This isn't really about data mining. (Score:5, Insightful)
Canadians are pissed and they're sick of being treated like children by the Bush administration.
So this is tit for tat.
You Americans unfairly persecute Canadians? Fine. Let's see how you like it.
Even Conservatives are coming out in public to decry U.S. policies. Do you really think that none of them will find ways to get political capital out of this?
This isn't about better access to data. It's bloody well the best way yet they've found to show their anger. And don't forget for a moment that all of these cases create a bargaining chip.
"You want your citizens to have freeer access to Canada? Sure. What's in it for us?"
I guarantee you that all over the world people are laughing their asses off about this. And, frankly, I can see their point.
-Rustin
Re:Exactly. This isn't really about data mining. (Score:4, Insightful)
No. That's absurd. This is a natural consequences of the US insistence of tighter border security and increased information sharing in a post 9/11 world. (OK, collectively we're a little pissed with the Bush administration, but that's not the point here.)
This is not Canada deciding to be petty and take it out on every day American citizens. This is what happens when the US government insists we do all of these things since they've been accusing us of having a porous border to let in terrorists, homosexuals, and communists.
Hell, this is almost a predictable consequence of heightened concern, increased security, and more information sharing. Period.
We like our American neighbors -- we might not be able to handle your politicians and foreign policy. But, this isn't happening to punish every day American citizens because we're cranky about something.
Respectfully, sir, that is horseshit. We are under increased scrutiny to enter the US as well in case you're oblivious to this. As is everyone from all over the world -- entry into the US is under much heightened regulations. The US government is insisting that other nations change their passports if their citizens expect to be admitted; and it's a two way street.
This is applying existing laws in the current reality of international security. Nothing more.
Cheers
Re:Funny (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, here's some first hand information from someone who is a Canadian who is a U.S. resident.
U.S. Customs officials are federal employees. No suprise there, but I wonder how many U.S. citizens has have had the pleasure of an encounter with one, say a security guard at federal court house? You know, the guy with the $4 buzz cut, gun in his holster, and no personality or sense of humour ready and eager to assert his power. And, quite frankly and typically, zero interest or patience with f'rnrs or their problems.
Crossing into Canada, well, you get a Canadian. The usual stereotype. Relaxed, friendly and good natured, doesn't take himself that seriously and tries to do a good job because he thinks it's the right thing to do. He's a product of a country that has had liberal immigration laws for decades, so he his outlook isn't tied into any sense of nationalism or a fear or dislike of immigrants.
The above two descriptions are valid irrespective of whether you're American or Canadian, or in which direction you're headed. Put another way, going into Canada is typically a breeze and comes with a "Have a nice visit", while crossing into the U.S. is an ugly experience, assuming, of course, you don't get turned away which happens on such a regular basis it's almost to be expected. And if you're a legal U.S. resident thinking you'll have no problems, you shouldn't be too outraged if the official decides to detain you or just decides to confiscate your residency card for an arbitrary reason before sending you back. It happened to me. Twice. I could recite the horror stories of friends, relatives and acquaintances from any number of nationalities (American included), so if I sound overly critical, know that I consider my own experiences fairly minor by comparison.
Canadians may be going through growing pains, and/or be influenced or pressured by their neighbour to the south, so border issues may be of greater concern, but I have few worries in that regard. It's the American side that distinguishes itself with nationalistic values, a concern about immigrants, worries of terrorists and terrorism, and a population where the average citizen is unlikely to have travelled outside of his state, let alone outside his country. Legitimate concerns there, perhaps, but that doesn't make the crossing any less miserable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Going into Canada one of the four of us didn't have a birth certificate or passport, our car was searched, our bottles of soda checked, our luggage rummaged through,the whole thing took probably an hour not counting the time we spent waiting for a team to tear through our shit.
Coming back we were hung over and barely intelligible, we failed to answer any of the guards questions coherently or logically, and we still never had to get ou
Re:Funny (you do worse) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
His joke wasn't about it being easy to 'legally' live in the us as a foreign national. The irony is that it's easier to live in the U.S. illegally than trying to do it legally. Something I joke about with my foreign fiancee, that if we have too, we'll just honeymoon in Mexico and I'll sneak her back in. =P
Cheers,
Fozzy
Canada is just giving it back. (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems that in these post 9/11 times, money alone is not enough for some nations, and they are leaning back.
Perhaps my government will re-think it's aggresive foreign policies...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
--jeffk++
Re:Canada is just giving it back. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What ACTUALLY happened, was that the USA passed a law saying every person entering the USA needs a passport, including their own citizens. So, if you show up at the Canadian border you probably won't let in. Why? Because if we let you into Canada, you can't go home and we'll be stuck with you.
Re: (Score:2)