Slashdot Mirror
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."
Other countries can turn our people away, but we can't seem to turn other counties people away.
i cant seem to come up with a sig.
And people say the US is a police state. At least here people with 30-year-old shoplifting and minor drug possession convictions can aspire to become a senator!
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
I guess the border patrol will switch over to the string tied sweatpants.
Something witty goes here.
So that means that Bush won't be traveling to Canada any time soon, due to his DUI conviction?
Hah!
you should read everything on the internet as if it had "but I'm probably talking out of my ass" appended to it.
So...I suppose people now will get their undies in a bundle over this. Putting aside for a moment the tenuous at best "YRO" category for this - where's the surprise, what's the problem? If you want to go visit a foreign country, they get to decide who they let in and for what reasons. 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.
FTA: as the Canadian Consulate's Web site says, "Driving while under the influence of alcohol is regarded as an extremely serious offense in Canada.
Whatever. I'd say DUI is the norm in Canada. Anybody for a Labatt's?
Well, it seems like US citizens are getting a taste of their own medicin...
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...
09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63
So if you were convicted for dodging the Vietnam draft by going to Canada, which the Canadian government allowed, would you be banned from returning now?
Slashdot really needs a "Your rights Offline" section... I've seen so many that really aren't online. Like this one.
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
Info sharing of criminal records amongst boarder officials = Good
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 drinking & driving... 20 years. If you stole a chocolate bar from the grocery store...2 years. If you were a free-lance Microsoft marketing enthusiast (aka. DoD member)... we should make you wait 5 minutes while we lay out the red carpet for you.
Adeptus
No trees were killed in the making of this post; however, many trillions of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
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?
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?
I'm not sure what the issue is here. Citizens entering the United States are expected to abide by our rules and regulations for entry (fairly draconian at this point i'm sure). How is it not fair that other countries not hold our citizens to the same standards?
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 crime 30-40 years ago is finally arrested and punished for their crimes. Being barred entry unless you fill out some extra paperwork to another country is not what i'd call ridiculous. You can claim unconstitutionally cruel and unsual punishment because of the length to which you are punished for your crimes, but GUESS WHAT - nobody else in the world gives a flip about our constitution, they have their own set of rules by which we have to abide if we wish to travel there. Entry into another country is a priviledge granted by that country, not our right. They can choose to deny anyone they wish for any reason and we can whine and moan about it but that doesn't mean they can't do it.
Perhaps my views here are a tad too black and white as i'm sure there are special cases where the person convicted of said offense was innocent, but police agencies don't generally deal well with shades of grey.
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson
... 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
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?
Finally, people are starting to give us back as good as we are giving them. It's about time. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Hopefully every country will start applying the full standard and stopping US government officials they don't like from entering as well. Then maybe we'll see some change here, and possibly a little humility.
You foreigners have been way too cowardly, refusing standing up for yourselves against my government. Get some fucking backbone.
I don't believe for a minute that this is anything more but passive-aggressive behavior on the part of the Canadians for our treating them as we still hated them for being on the Loyalist side in the American Revolution.
I can't believe a passport is required for a trip to Canada. Canada, for gosh sakes.
All that crap I learned in school about how friendly the two countries were and how informal border formalities were and how it was the longest unguarded border in the world... and now this.
A few years ago my wife and I took our first trip to Europe, and we were concerned because our destination was The Netherlands and we were flying into Antwerp. I was saying to our friends that it was all well and good that we could save time on the flight, but I was leery of running into border formalities, especially when tired and jet-lagged. Our friends kept laughing, and saying that there was nothing at the Belgium-Netherlands border, nothing at all, not so much as a kiosk or a friendly uniformed guy to wave at us.
We didn't believe them. It was true.
We were less aware of crossing this national border than we were of crossing from Massachusetts into New York (where the pavement changes texture, and there are toll boths and big signs telling us how glad Eliot Spitzer is to see us).
Our border crossing at Niagara Falls a few years ago, where we had to wait in a line of cars for about three minutes and wave a birth certificate at an official, looked like an ordeal by comparison.
And now? Passports and background checks? Holy cow, what are things coming to? How long before we build a concrete wall?
It's a crying shame.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Little bit of a disconnect between Canadian Border Security and Canadian Tourism industry. The only thing this will do is put a cooling effect on American tourists going to Canada. Mostly because of media over reaction and hype. But still, this enforced policy will most certainly cost Canada millions in tourist dollars because the average american will not know if a 30 year old littering conviction will keep them out, so why bother making vacation plans to Canada. All this enforced security is still not going to keep the terrorists from just walking across the border. Seems rather pointless.
I live in the EU. Technically, I can send goods, and especially money, from my own country to another in the union and not have to pay any customs or tarriffs. There is free trade of goods here.
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.
May the Maths Be with you!
No, but you can send them to Syria to be tortured (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar)
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. 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.
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?
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.
I want people to be able to visit me without being hassled. Also when one country starts doing such things, other countries often follow, so citizens of all countries end up being affected. A world where movement between countries becomes harder is not one which I want, and I don't see how parrotting "their country, their rules" has any relevance to this issue.
the previous group had convictions
You just said the first said he was not convicted.
where sentences and conviction travel at lightspeed while the indentured
populations stay on the plantation?
"Boy why would you want to go up north anyway? Who would be to keep you
and feed you?"
Of course, it's hard to check the records of people crossing the desert in the middle of the night.
It is short-sighted and foolish to only fight against a law/policy when it is enforced.
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.
I actually know a guy who was on an organized trip who was turned away because they had to inspect the entire bus....he had a drunk driving conviction at some point apparently. He got stuck in no-man's land for a few hours before leaving and then being smuggled back across by another friend of his.
There is more to science than physics!
www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com
"Remember, until now people could get into Canada even having done bad things."
Or simply walk across. The border with Canada is even more porous than the Mexican one.
So if I'm to emigrate, I'd best do it now, eh?
Remember being warned in school that our offenses would be put on our "permanent record"? Well, see!? It was true. No all you naughty children will pay the price! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Does yours? If not, lobby to make it so.
Personally, I think every misdemeanor and every "minor" felony, say, one where the maximum possible sentence is less than 5-10 years, should be routinely sealed after a period of time. Unseal it only if there's a new conviction, so the guy can get a longer sentence the 2nd time around. For traffic citations, petty theft, "personal use" drug charges, minor prostitution, and other misdemeanors, this should only be a few years. For minor felonies, it should be 3-5 times the maximum sentence with some minimum, perhaps 5 or 10 years. Something you do at 18 that could've got you 10 years should be sealed by the time you are 58 if not a lot sooner.
If you need it sealed sooner, you should be able to request a hearing. However, the prosecutor and your victims will be notified and given a chance to speak up at your hearing. Victim impact statements from the original trial will also be considered.
Major felonies, those that you can get over 10 years in prison for, won't be automatically sealed but you could still request a seal after some minimum period of time.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
If you used and sold cocaine and pot (even in the white house as child), bankrupted companies, you can become a president.
The standard solution to this problem in most of the world is to make a payoff to someone.
Let's see, in the USA there are roughly about %15 to %20 of the population who can't enter Canada according to these restrictions. We have at least 20-25 million people who have been arrested for possession of marijuana since it became a political crime used against the young about forty years ago. Plus another ten to twenty million people who have been arrested for minor misdemeanors over the course of their lives. Millions of these people want and occasionally need to enter Canada every few years for business.
But now they can't because of this political chickenshit. These restrictions have been in place since the Vietnam War and used against minorities like African-Americans and Euro-American hippies who show up at the border in cars. But generally, arriving by plane with a return ticket gets one into Canada without incident. But now with the computers and databases that dredge up 30-year-old residue-in-a-bong bust it becomes harder to simply ignore for the border 'police' or either country.
So, as whenever a ridiculous and absurd but unresolvable political situation comes up against reality, the same thing always happens. Corruption enters; someone gets paid-off. The 'crime' is overlooked if the price is right.
The only real questions about this situation are:
1) Whether it will be the Canadian border 'police' who will be taking and keeping the bribes on an ad-hoc basis. This turns Canada into a little Mexico, which I don't really think will happen.
2) The situation blows over with time and things go back to 'normal' where only blacks and hippies are arbitrarily and systematically denied entry into Canada for chickenshit reasons.
3) Americans will have to pay a big 'chunk of change' to get someone in the so-called Homeland Security department to 'adjust' the computer records so that the individual making the big payoff is not inconvenienced at borders. This is the most likely scenario because it matches the American obsession with money with their innate corruption. Plus it allows the 'background adjuster' to further extort money from the 'offender' at any point in the future, since making payoffs to government officials is major crime against 'national security'; right up there with residue-in-a-bong drug offenses.
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 accordingly. If you, as a Canadian (presumably?) don't like it, work to get your laws changed. But, that's the law on the books at this time, they now have a means and motivation to enforce it, and that's the way it is.
I want people to be able to visit me without being hassled. Also when one country starts doing such things, other countries often follow, so citizens of all countries end up being affected. A world where movement between countries becomes harder is not one which I want, and I don't see how parrotting "their country, their rules" has any relevance to this issue. Parroting? Seems pretty straightforward to me. Don't like the rules, don't go to the party.
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.)
Delay is preferable to error. (Thomas Jefferson)
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 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.
Ignoring the whole logical jump here, don't employers essentially do this already when hiring from another country? A friend of mine is being promoted within his organization which is resulting in him moving from the Canadian office to an American office. Despite this being within the same company, the American checks are incredibly thorough (minimum of 3 month process apparently, requires providing a large number of documents including University transcripts, etc).
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?
So are you against criminal records going back so far for trivial things or against border security's access to criminal records in the first place? Either way, I'm not sure what changing prison sentences has to do with any of it.
In any case, I think this is reasonable for the most part - giving border security access to information is good. Also, this isn't anything new - I know someone who worked for border security and it was common practice to contact the local police department from the place where a suspicious person was from in order to determine if they had a criminal record or not. If anything, his should seriously speed things up (though, as it is a government agency, I seriously doubt that will happen).
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
Data is the lever, rigor the fulcrum, brains the force that drives it all.
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
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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 telling you about it) is dangerously close to ex post facto legislation.
Hey Canada has had these laws on the books for a long time it seems. Now they can enforce them because of better technology. Canada has the right to enforce it's laws and the right to change them.
It doesn't bother me at all.
Doesn't offend me at all.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
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 will always be suspected as having a tendency re-commit. Innocent until proven guilty used to mean for each individual crime, but the feeling now is that if you were ever proven guilty of anything, then you can never again be truly innocent of anything.
Even worse, I see more and more the tendency to assume if you were ever even accused of the crime, you will always be under suspicion for the rest of your life. That is regardless of whether you were convicted or not, even if someone else was eventually convicted for the crime.
The only end I can see for this is, when everyone is convicted or under suspicion for something, the attitude will shift and people will feel that if they are going to be continually punished, then they might as well keep doing the crime. That will lead to a positive feedback loop of suspicion -> crime -> conviction -> suspicion -> crime.... until anarchy rebuilds society.
But then again, I'm in a black mood this week. Maybe it not as bad as I think, and the AnnaBritneyIdol stories leading the all the major news networks just have me weeping for humanity right now.
"Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
I've read at least one comment by someone identifying himself as a Canadian official saying that the law isn't harsh as the article states. The truth is that, unless you buy an expensive one-day visa, any kind of arrest record at all, no matter the trivialness of the offence or how long ago it was, is enough to prevent one from entering Canada.
This isn't even a uniquely Canadian law. Most countries have such regulations. Canada's not allowed to be lax on our border control anymore though, because if we are the US will start calling us a terrorist haven again.
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 Canada to try to find a job in the US?
TFA recommends taking a look at your record and understanding what's there. How would anyone go about doing this?
If you have 30-year-old shoplifting/minor drug possession convictions AND try to come into Canada carrying a bottle of shampoo that is larger then 4 ounces (Imperial that is! Wonder what it would be in millilitres? ), you'll be sent to a work camp up in the high arctic where you'll be forced to hand-craft Inukshuks for purchase by tourists that are not hardened criminals and thus will be allowed into Canada.
You have been warned!
Chaeron Corporation
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.
...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.
One of the key checks on government power has always been the expense of monitoring its citizens. The ubiquity of information technology has caused a precipitous drop in the cost of monitoring. Consequently, the balance of power is shifting away from citizens and towards the government. Maybe that's what everyone wants, but if it isn't, we should be looking at either restricting the government's use of technology to spy on citizens (stronger privacy laws), or reducing the penalties associated with minor violations.
You know, a lot of americans are whining about this, its the law in canada, it has been the law for quite some time. Also, it looks good on you. You've been making it harder for Canadians to cross the border for awhile now. Its only fair to have it both ways.
(vsa, ptp. fem. of vsere to look into, see to)
...".
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.
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
Well said. I think the attitude you described ultimately increases crime because it makes it impossible for anyone to truly make something of themselves after making amends. Yah, some of them really are miserable people or have drinking problems who'll never come clean but they aren't the rule. I can imagine the fustration of someone getting out of jail thinking they had paid their dues but never truly being allowed to move on. I wouldn't blame them for saying "f*k you" to the world after a while and committing another crime.
"The only end I can see for this is, when everyone is convicted or under suspicion for something, the attitude will shift and people will feel that if they are going to be continually punished, then they might as well keep doing the crime."
Give them time. They'll even make innocence a crime eventually.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
I agree that cases like the 30 years-old marijuana possession are ridiculous. But looking in the big picture, this is poetic justice!
:-)), there's good people and bad people in the USA. But i'm telling that maybe now can be easier to those people that are (wrongfully, in my opinion) turned away from Canada to understand why 90% of the world have a bad vision of the USA. Only when the good people on the USA (and I believe they are the vast majority) starts to REALLY take pressure on the fascist government that took place there, they will be forced to change behaviour.
On the article, one of the men that could not cross the border talks about being in a full room for three hours, like a criminal, to be turned away. For years (way before 9/11), the U.S. act like this with a good chunk of the visitors. More than that: in some countries, you need to wait hours in a line just to an interview with someone in the consulate when you try to get a visa to travel to USA. And, after those hours on the line, the consulate representative can just tell you that you can't get a visa, and is not obligated to tell you why.
Please note that I'm obviously not saying that the MAJORITY of the americans agree with it. I know lovely people from the USA, and like all the countries on earth (and universe
--- Illogical Spock
What really worries me is when I start having flashbacks, in daily life, back to my old college days playing 'Paranoia'.
"Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
Putting on my tin-foil hat, this might be handy for keeping draftees from skipping to Canada...
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
Imagine that. A country other than the US doing what it wants. Geez, yanks. Grow up. True north, strong and free. Free to do whatever we want, thank you.
After all, it's for the children and to fight terrorism.
Why would a social worker want to leave Canada to try to find a job in the US?
The same reasons most Canadians do. More money and lower taxes.
I wonder if this type of controversial data sharing is even legal. Do we, the People, really want this and did we even authorize it? Hopefully our representatives will intervene since afterall we live in a democracy and they are there to represent us, right?
The USA has a long history of leaning on other nations to get what the USA wants. Other nations would accept the imposition, because it meant more money.
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...
Blar.
"Why are we insulting American tourists???? Minor convictions from long ago should NOT affect their ability to enter the country."
In the USA a conviction for DUI/DWI/DWAI is not a major offense, in my state it is a traffic offense. In Canada it is a FELONY. So for something considered a traffic offense in my state, I am a felony criminal in Canada? I don't recall seeing anything preventing a Canadian from entering the USA with a DWI conviction, but a American can not enter Canada with a DWI conviction.
A search of the US DOS site ( travel.state.gov ) shows only Canada as a country that prevents people with DWI's from entering.
Where is the parity in that?
I'll buy the booze and rent them a car.
Does anyone know where you can rent a Pinto or Propane truck?
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Myths, actually. By the time you factor in health insurance premiums your more money disappears in most jobs and Albertans pay lower taxes than several US states.
Besides, guess where those higher taxes are going? To pay for things like... more social workers!
I knew I should have returned that library book in 1977.
Table-ized A.I.
You can't go complaining about lax Canadian immigration policy and using it as an excuse for your own immigration failures (let's remind ourselves, none of the 9/11 hijackers came in from Canada) and then complain when Canada gets tough with its borders and excludes people with criminal histories.
Granted, Canada's pretty lax about its own criminal justice system (serial killers out after 12 years, political murderers out in less than ten (FLQ), etc), but at least this is a good start.
for internet gambling...
" If you don't like it, well, don't do things to limit that option for yourself, "
You assume the US legal system does the right thing, is fair, and perfect. It isn't. Quite frankly, that you aren't aware of this shows your ignorance of law, and certainly you likely haven't bothered to the read the laws of your country, state, or locality.
Under the US legal system, minor summary offenses are more like blackmail; you appear before a low end township magistrate, in a court of no record, and defend yourself. You're supposed to be presumed innocent, but that never happens; prior to your entry into the courtroom, the police officer who pulled you over or wrote the offense has a nice 5-10 minute "chat" with the magistrate.
So, you can defend yourself and lose to the "word" of an officer, higher an attorney at an average of $500 a hearing and $250 for an appeal, pay the $300 fine and get it over with, or face a police friendly judge who can lock you up for 30 days, starting as soon as he likes, arbitrarily, without much oversite, since the appeals process that takes normally at least 30 days.
Yes, that means you can fight it, or run the risk of losing your job, 1 month of income, and imprisonment for summary, normally fine expenses. See Pennsylvania. Other states have similar threatening laws on the books. It's up to the magistrates complete discretion.
My offense? I received a disorderly conduct charge for pulling into my garage. Gotta love the cops in and around Lancaster, PA.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Life_of_Brian
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I've been meaning to ask....with all this heightened security, what happens to border towns? I recall a section between VT and PQ where the border runs down the middle of the street (Canusa Street, cheekily enough). Are there border patrol officers at each corner checking folks who cross the street? Plus there are some homes and buildings that the border runs through (there's an opera house that's in both countries. How is that handled these days?
A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
It has always been this way going to the States. Now it is that way coming to Canada too.
I agree that this will be a much bigger problem for Americans than Canadians, as Americans imprison a n order of magnitude higher percentage of their citizens than we do. Why this is I don't know - either Canadians are that much more law abiding, or the U.S. government regularly breaks the first rule of leadership, which is to never make a rule no one will follow. My personal guess it is a mixture of both, with the latter being favoured more highly than the former.
This will be continue to be an issue for Americans travelling elsewhere if the U.S. makes similar information sharing agreements with others, as the U.S.'s imprisonment rate per capita is similarly higher than most of the rest of the free world.
That's all right.
Americans are all shits anyway, and like manure it does them good to be forked occasionally.
The Rest of the World is so happy!!
About 20 years ago, I was travelling by car from Waterloo, Ontario to Chicago to demonstrate our software product to some customers. We had it installed on a Compaq luggable (thing weighed about 25 lbs.). The US customs agent detained us for nearly an hour, wanting to know why we were bringing this computer into the US. I pointed out that it was built in Texas, so it wasn't like we were trying to bring some "foreign" equipment into the country. He didn't care. He seemed obsessed with the idea that we were going to sell it once we had it in the US. Finally, after insisting we fill out a bunch of forms, he let us in, but to this day, I still remember him shouting at us as we got in our car "You make damn sure that thing leaves the country with you!".
What was once true, is no longer so
"requiring special dispensation" to be funny. The dispensation isn't all that hard to get, otherwise the last Alcoholics Anonymous International Convention wouldn't have been in Toronto in '05. I know a guy with 4 DUIs, all less than 2 years old and all within a year, who had no problem. He just contacted the embassy, told them why he was going to Toronto, and got the stamp on his passport.
Best Slashdot Co
Well I dont mind this, I never really liked the fact that americans could get into our country so easily. At least now we have a first step in keeping our country safer by keeping the worse of the worse out.
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.
This is getting to be a problem in places like New York. By treaty rights the various Iroquois and other tribal members are able to go back and forth across the US/Canadian border but since 911 some are being harassed. A few months ago in the news the leader of a ceremony was threatened when a guard tried to inspect his medicine bundle with tobacco in it. It used to be an Indian could take a boat or canoe across the St. Lawrence River without problems but now they may be stopped and turned back. The same thing is happening on the US/Mexican border. Mmebers of the Tohono O'odham Nation along with other tribes in northern Mexico and Arizona have the right to cross the border here as well however the Border Patrol and DEA agents also harrass them. They also are being harassed, and killed. By coyotes, those who smuggle drugs and "illegal aliens".
FalconShould there be a Law?
This has been happening for years now, I used to travel to Canada for business purposes servicing and installing industrial equipment. For many of the 22 years I had more problems with the jerks on the U.S. side not wanting to allow me to return home. The Canadians then started having a blatant disregard of the Nafta agreement going as far as escorting me to the next plane back to the States. If you wish to enter the U.S or Canada you have a better chance if you will be a burden to society and not gainfully employable.It's a great system on both sides of the border.
And post 09/11/01, they are generally asking to see ID on both sides of the border now. This was not always the case prior to 09/11/01.
It certainly wasn't the case a month before 911. In August 2001 I was visiting some relatives in Detroit when I drove from there to New London, Ontario without any problem. And I don't recall showing id coming or going.
FalconShould there be a Law?
http://www.aim.org/special_report/5247_0_8_0_C/
Do what you will with info from Accuracy in Media articles, but this is some pretty damning stuff... And as ever... Condi & Chertoff and Bush are behind it all.
Sorry man... the Internet pooped on me.
Well well well, nice to see scofflaws getting what they deserve.
Ha, ha, ha.
Besides, all someone wanting to cross the US/Canada border(in either direction) without going through customs or security has to do is cross it, it isn't like there is a big fence or insanely active patrols. You wouldn't want to get caught, but it probably isn't that hard not to get caught.
I can even drive across the border without stopping. Minneasota and North Dokota have roads into Canada and while some may have border shacks they're not always manned. Inside there's a phone to call an agent and give your info but there's nothing to stop you from driving right on by without stopping.
FalconShould there be a Law?
In a further attempt to harmonize our practises with those of the United States, we will be implementing a policy whereby people we don't like the looks of will be extrajudicially rendered to Syria, dumped in a pit, tortured, and left to rot.
Canadians sound selfish. They act like they're the only ones this has happened too. It's not like the current "fight terrorism" policies are aimed at Canada specifically. The policies are targeting people, not countries.
Yeah, targetting innocent people not terrorists! I don't know about you but I prefer Thomas Jefferson's idea of letting ten guilty go free instead of falsely punishing one innocent!
FalconShould there be a Law?
Why does the U.S government ship brown people overseas to have them tortured in places like Syria?
What really gets me is that while the Bush admin sent "suspects", renditing, to Syria at the same tyme it was claiming Syria was part of the "Axis of Evil".
FalconShould there be a Law?
Canadians are already being screened this way entering the US, why are Americans upset when Canada starts doing the same thing?
Why do you assume that the reporting of it implies we are upset? I say go for it. I consider it quite reasonable to report on governments' intrusion into our lives; the more reports the better. The level of government intrusion into the lives of people in this world (including the U.S.) is staggering and quite possibly higher than most of history.
For that matter, what would be wrong with being upset? If it led to rescinding this security theatre, would that not be a good thing?
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
How is it payback to enforce a law that has been around forever? This is the result of information sharing making a natural progression as more databases become linked.
In reality, this linking is a good thing. Data normaliztion makes use of the data more efficient and reduces costs of management.
Now what is not good, is the law that suddenly becomes overbearing because of the new ability to actually see information they could not before. That means the law needs to be rethought, not the data linking! Obviously there needs to me more reasonable limits hammered out on both sides as to what things are just cause for denying entry. From the American side, I met a Canadian family that was going to go to Florida with a grandmother, and she found she couldn't get in because of a thirty year old shoplifting charge! A law that stops that person from entering is not well written and needs to be re-worked.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I grew up on the US border, and I just finished working most of the past year in Canada. And you know what? There's nothing really to see here.
(1) These are existing laws; they're just now able to enforce them.
(2) Not just Canadians will need passports to get into the United States. Americans will need them to get back home, too. You already do by sea or air, and late this year you'll need one by car or foot, too.
(3) Not all Canadians hate Americans, just not as all Americans hate Americans. The same political mindset that are America-haters in the USA are the America-haters in Canada.
(4) Canada actually requires some pretty strict qualifications for foreign workers to earn a work permit, unlike the USA where almost anyone can be sponsored for an H1-B.
(5) It usually takes me less than five minutes of waiting to get into Canada at Port Huron-Sarnia. It often takes 20 to 30 minutes to get into the USA at the same border. That's travelling with a foreign-to-both-countries wife.
(6) They're a lot stricter about commercial goods entering than the Americans, but the historically weak Canadian dollar and high Canadian sales taxes have conditioned them to have to worry about things coming across the border.
(7) Canadian TV sucks. Yeah, so does a lot of American TV. So consider their "sucks" as relative to our "sucks" and you know what you've got. Of course they do air a lot of our "sucks" so there's sometimes less relative suckiness, but Canadian laws mandates certain amounts of Canadian suckiness to be aired anyway. Yeah, this applies to crossing the border because, well, the signal is the traveller this time.
--Jim (me)
I remember having to get a special VISA from the US Department of Homeland Security for my wife to travel to Hawaii back in '04. She had a misdemeanor public nuisance charge about 12 years earlier, and they wouldn't let her through the airport.
The only thing that ticks me off, is there is no way of knowing if your going to get turned away until your already there. Rebooking flights, hotels is not easy and not cheap.
We don't need no US dopeheads. They can buy our BC Bud freely in their own cities and toke up down there, thank you very much...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
I'd say that the latter is most likely what causes the former. If you break various laws on a daily basis because (either you find it to be an unjust law, or because it's so frivolous that nobody bothers with it), then you start to see the more grey-area laws as not worth your time to find out about and avoid breaking, either.
Really, in the US the average person breaks the law dozens or hundreds of times per day in insignificant ways (jaywalking on an empty street, spitting in public, downloading a TV episode you missed the last 5 minutes of, etc.). Any one of those could get you in trouble if you're unlucky enough to be caught by an officer who is feeling like enough of a dick to harass you.
This really just is an excellent illustration of why there are really so many laws on the books in most countries; the government cares less about protecting the citizens than it does about controlling them: If you're a criminal, the government has much more control over your actions and movements than if you're not.
I am an American who is a frequent visitor to Canada; enough that I have a Canadian cell phone and a Canadian firearms license (including the privilege to possess, acquire, and transport handguns in Canada). I've been a contractor to the Canadian government, admitted under special national security status.
Quite frankly, I think that this information sharing is long overdue. At the border crossing, I see many idiots who fail to take customs/immigration procedures seriously. These idiots are invariably young Americans of the left-liberal persuasion. They behave like jackasses, and make things much more difficult for the people who are behind them in line. When they get caught with drugs or weapons, they start getting abusive and demanding their "human rights".
The worst idiots are the ones who think that Canada has no right to decide who is admissible. Canada has made it quite clear that they don't want foreigners with DUI convictions.
One of the key checks on government power has always been the expense of monitoring its citizens. The ubiquity of information technology has caused a precipitous drop in the cost of monitoring. Consequently, the balance of power is shifting away from citizens and towards the government. Maybe that's what everyone wants, but if it isn't, we should be looking at either restricting the government's use of technology to spy on citizens (stronger privacy laws), or reducing the penalties associated with minor violations.
I am one of those that opposes government monitoring of people, whether citizens or not. I fear government more than any terrorists, for it's government that's the biggest terrorists and it supports others.
FalconShould there be a Law?
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?
So are you against criminal records going back so far for trivial things or against border security's access to criminal records in the first place?
I am against both of these. The only criminal records that should be held long after the debt to society is paid is if it can be shown the person is still a threat to society or people. All others should be deleted. As for borders, border crossing and security, I also disagree with them. All they are are imaginary lines drawn on paper, most of the tyme drawn by invaders and conquerers. People should be able to go anywhere they want and not have their liberty restricted. If they harm anyone or commit a crime then convict them, othewise leave them alone.
FalconShould there be a Law?
"Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet, Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
I know it's off topic but I had to say something about your sigline. The line reminds me of a line from one of my fav singers sings in one of my fav songs of her's, "The difficult I'll do right now, the impossible will take a little while." By Billie Holiday.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Indictable Offence: An offence which can only be tried on an indictment after a preliminary hearing to determine whether there is a prima facie case to answer or by a grand jury. In trials for indictable offences, the accused normally has the right to a jury trial. Referred to as "felonies" in the U.S.A.
Summary Conviction Offence: An offence which can be tried without an indictment. In practice, this often means a trial without a jury, jury trials being reserved for indictable offences. Summary offences are often "petty crimes" or crimes that are not considered very severe such as most driving offences.
Atheism is a religion to the same extent that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
I'm American, and I have a Canadian girlfriend. I've crossed the border a few times now, and as far as I can tell, what you're describing is right. The Canadian border people aren't usually overtly friendly - I have yet to see one smile - but they often don't ask to see my ID, and once they didn't even bother to look at my face (I was in the back seat while my girlfriend and her mother were in the front). The Americans, on the other hand, always checked the passports of everyone in the vehicle, asked a lot of questions, etc. It does seem to help if my girlfriend is crossing into the US with me. When she's only with other Canadians, they tend to be subject to a lot more scrutiny.
Where is New London, Ontario? I'm from southwestern Ontario and I've never heard of it, nor can I find it on the online map sites I checked.
Atheism is a religion to the same extent that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Oh ja, Johanna the North American Union _is real_ and it _is here_.
Whereas the EU was sold to its unfortunates as a way to empower
people by a common market with a common currency and with residency
rights and work permits for every EU citizen throughout the EU,
our dictators can't even be bothered to go through the motions.
Never mind the Amero, the new American-Canadian-Mexican Dollareso
(muy doloroso, amigos), never mind that they're letting half of
South America "reconquista" the south-west, never mind that they'll
charge you a fortune on toll road fees to leave your plantation
(for another).. you will be told there is a North American Union
after they've powered up it's electric fence.
Didn't their mothers tell them it was "nice to be important, but more important to be nice?"
I'd mod u up, if I weren't a coward using TOR.
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 blame. Again, what kind of an idiotic argument is that?!?
You're not driving it, but you're riding shotgun reading the map.
The fact that the US has gone headlong into fascism does not in any way absolve you from responsibility for your actions.
Oh how I know it, dear friend. I've lived on the front lines here in San Diego for the last 10 years. Bravely running away next month, I am. Just keep watching American Idol and Dancing with the Stars, folks.... the Nation will still be here when your kids grow up unable to go to college because it's full of Mexican nationals paying in-state tuition!
:( So, I am leaving Southern California for the mountains of Colorado...where the infection is almost as bad, but at least I can retreat into my cave in the mountains and watch the world fall apart from the safety of my own land. Unless they give that to the Mexicans too..
And King Shrub announced this morning that US highways will now be open to Mexican trucks. LOVELY. More death traps to kill innocent American children in mom & dad's SUV.
I've been talking this crap until I'm blue in the face... called every dirty name in Spanish and English, and all the while... they just keep shoving it all through, without regards to Americans. And *EACH TIME*, I've been right. I really hate those I Told You So words... I really really do.
I live 10 miles from Tijuana right now... crime is skyrocketing, prices are even worse, and I can't throw a rock without hitting La Raza or whatever activists. Funny thing that... my forefathers drew first blood from Santa Ana in 1836. I'm really glad my grandfather (a Texas Marshal til the day he died) didn't live to see this abberation.
And yes, I do place this squarely on King Shrub's head. How many illegals does HE employ? I just want my country back. Alas, it is not to be.
Sorry man... the Internet pooped on me.
$10.5 million.. ridiculous
I wonder about this...
If Canada uses NCIC in order to obtain the criminal backgrounds of us citizens in order to determine entry and your state is one in which a dui is not a criminal office (ie: in nj, it has been ruled that dui is NOT a crime and considered a traffic offense and handled in municipal court WITHOUT a jury) does this mean that if you were to have a dui in that state, the ncic check will come back clear and Canadian Immigration not see that you have a dui and thus allow you into CANADA?
European state's border officers don't bother stamping passports half the time and are usually friendly. Most Asian nation's border officers don't care as long as you don't look like a drug runner. They're also professional and subdued.
Why then are Canada's border officers rude, condescending, unprofessional idiots? Are they trying to out-Asshole our border patrol? I refuse to travel on business to Canada. I have had enough of being hassled. Other countries are more deserving of my money.
President Carter issued blanket amnesty to all those that dodged the draft in the Vietnam war. It meant that any convictions were overturned, and the government had no ability to pursue new charges.
Also Canada is not interested in how an offence is rather under the other country's law, but rather how it is under Canadian law. Under Canadian law, it wasn't illegal, thus not an issue.
I've encountered both kinds on both sides of the border. I'm a US/Canadian dual citizen, so neither country can deny me admission. Most of the time, it's a simple matter, they ask a few questions and I go on my business. The least I've ever been asked was on the way back to the US (I live in the US). The guy asked "Coming home sir?" and I said "Yes sir," he said "Welcome to America," and on my way I went. I've encountered some real bitchy Canadian border agents though. Last time I went I didn't get the bitchy one, the guy I talked to was nice, but the guy in the next line over was a prick. He was giving two girls the third degree for no real reason that I could determine. He just seemed like one of those people with a chip on his shoulder.
You get it anywhere in the world, some people are nice, some aren't.
Is that in the US there's not a single one, there are 50 separate ones. Each state has it's own DMV and they are really separate. There's separate laws for what you have to do to get a license, how much it costs, how often you need to renew, etc. The whole concept of a union of independent states is really true. They aren't as independent as they once were, but the states really do have a large degree of autonomy.
It would make things rather difficult on the Canadian side as they'd have to interface with 50 different databases, probably not all of them very good. Also, in the US at least, you needn't be a citizen to get a license and there's nothing on your license to indicate citizenship. You just need to be a resident, and a student on a visa would count.
We lack anything like the Canadian citizenship card, so the only real proof of US citizenship is a passport or a birth certificate (if you were born in the US you are a US citizen according to the US).
This guy can fuck right off. This is a consequence of Canada allowing dual citizenships and being pussies about it. If he had a single Canadian citizenship, the U.S. would have had no diplomatic alternative than to to deport him back to Canada. However he was allowed and chose to keep a Syrian citizenship as well. Too bad for him that he made that choice. Why should Canada have to fight to protect him or anyone who are detained by authorities in countries that they freely chose to maintain citizenship in? If he got sent there and tortured, yeah that's bad. But he shouldn't blame Canada for that or ask and get compensation. If he were a citizen of only Canada, it wouldn't have happened. Why should Canada take precidence over which country he is deported to? [sarcasm]Because we're nicer?[/sarcasm]
Same for the Lebanese who came to Canada, got dual citizenship and moved back to Lebanon... and got Canada to spend millions of dollars to evacuate them when Israel invaded by invoking their 'Canadian citizenship'. And a lot of them complained they weren't evacuated from a war zone the way they liked. They can all fuck off too.
Canada needs immigrants economically. And most who come here are good people. But it should be all or nothing. You want to be a citizen, then you should be a citizen of one country. You shouldn't expect to sit on the fence and pick and choose to your liking. Of course that brings the riddle: Why did the Canadian cross the road? To get to the middle. Enough already... and I am Canadian.
And by the way, the U.S. still won't let Arar into their country. They claim they deported him on more than just the word of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
I'm from the UK and hitchiked around teh US/Candeda back when I was 18, and your observations are very true.
US to Candeda, looks at passport, says welocme to Candeda
Candeda to US, a full on "good cop bad cop" and search every time we crossed teh boarder
Now you know how every single person going through US immigration feels.
Actually, our police are competent, and manage to stop terrorism the way you used to stop terrorism -- by being police and investigating possibly dangerous people and situations. It's the yanks who love running around killing innocent people in wars, thus showing that their leadership has never read Sun Tzu, and thus never had to understand the concept of winning the victory before trying to win battles.
It's been a long time.
I think both countries have a serious problem where people don't really know what the laws are anyway. Kids ought to be given a copy of the current legislation, and part of any amendment ought to be sending a copy of that amendment to every household in the country, to be pasted into the family lawbook. Otherwise, you'll get situations like now where nobody knows the law, and if nobody knows the law, how can they be the people who choose who makes the laws? How can they follow the laws?
It's been a long time.
We (as Canadians) should apply the same standards to Americans that US Customs apply to us.
Turnabout is fair play. And this is coming from a Canadian who actually likes America doesn't have the typical reflexive Anti-Americanism that most Canadians have...
When I go on the tunnel bus from Windsor to Detroit to go see the Lions or Red Wings, I am peppered with questions about have ever being denied entry, do I have a criminal record and even do I work for a living.... despite the fact that I am coming to the USA on a public transit bus to see a game. Where exactly am I going to go in downtown Detroit without a car? I am sure if I had a criminal record that US customs would have no problem denying me entry.
This is their right, but I just kind of find it ironic that me, who is a professional and a tourist coming to spend $$$ in an economically depressed Michigan is given a rough time, when the US has such a porous southern border and in the end is going to eventually give anyone who crossed illegally from Mexico amnesty and probably forgiveness on back taxes...
Talk about having your priorities messed up...
I have to disagree. Canadian border guards are not Mr.Nice Guy. They are painfully dumb and arrogant. I'm Canadian-born but I've been living in EU for close to 9 years. I recently visited my relatives in Montreal on a very Canadian passport and speaking a very obvious Montrealer slang.
First, there was the endless grilling from the Immigration officer, about where exactly all my parents and relatives live and how long I factually intend to stay in the country. One would think that citizens have an unrestricted right to visit their homeland, but that guy apparently never heard about it. He was clearly looking for an illegal immigrant traveling on a fake passport (probably because I had just gotten myself a new passport, shortly before the trip).
That was followed by more grilling by the Customs officer, for whom it would not compute that a citizen did not fill the "Residents of Canada" section of the Custom Declaration (for obvious reasons: I haven't had any place of residence in Canada since relocating to EU). I literally to connect the dots for him, by showing him all my European pieces of ID and pointing out that they were issued by the same country as the invoice attached to the Tax-Free goods I was carrying in a sealed transparent plastic bag from the same airport I had departed from. Even then, he didn't look too convinced, but he eventually let me go when he couldn't think of any other smart question to ask.
I tend to be a rather patient guy, but this "welcome" to a place that is supposedly my "homeland" was the icing on the cake: I wrote a formal complain to the Customs and Taxation Board and another one to Immigration Canada, demanding acknowledgment that I no longer am a Canadian citizen (never mind the fact that I never accepted citizenship, in the first place; there's nothing more typically Canadian than to turn a right into an obligation). I already left largely because I was really tired of the governmental bureaucracy's antics; giving me more of that definitely was the wrong way to convince me to ever return. At this point, I really don't want to have anything to do with Canada or its monkey citizenship, ever again. Fuck off, Canada, and good riddance!
Software is not supposed to be about how to work around a useability issue. - Ken Barber
I suppose this is news to some people, but this is ancient history. About 5 years ago (December 3, 2001) they signed a formal agreement that essentially legitimized what had been an ad hoc but non formal arrangement; ie you had to jump through a little hoop but access was never denied; it was referred then as "sharing". Once the agreement was signed, you don't have to ask; it's the same as accessing the domestic database; it's full unrestricted access for authorized personnel, which includes any bona fide law enforcement officer in either nation.
5 919&CFTOKEN=76404916&jsessionid=1e3013767811722888 47363/, which is a branch of the RCMP, runs the Canadian one. It's one of the older computerized databases in the world, it became fully operational in 1967. If you know the correct access information (and I guarantee your local US police does) you can access CPIC online via the link I just gave you, and even members of the public can have limited access (check for stolen vehicles or bicycles by license plate number, and check for recovered stolen property). By the way, your IP will be logged ;-)
I guarantee you that, as a US citizen, if you have ever been stopped by a Canadian police officer, he had full access to whatever the State Police would have access to if you were home; and if he had your ID and sat in the car, he checked you; and he also ran your plate to check who the vehicle is registered to.
The same would happen to any Canadian traveling in the US, provided the officer had access to the FBI database in-car (all State Troopers could, I know for sure, but 10 or 15 years ago some local police might not have the gear in-car. They could call it in and the station would have access, though). Others with direct, seamless access to Canadian records are the US Border Patrol, US Customs Service, and the DEA.
I don't know the details of the US database except that it's operated by the FBI and was originally the Fingerprints Database which J Edgar Hoover started in the 1920's. the Canadian Police Information Centre http://www.cpic-cipc.ca/English/index.cfm?CFID=64
There is also sharing of data between the Insurance Bureau Of Canada and the US-based National Insurance Crime Bureau (both combat insurance fraud).
This has nothing to do with 9/11 or anything else; it's been going on for at least 40 years, but the formal agreement was hastily signed to make everything nice and legal during the very first meeting after 9/11 between Attorney General Ashcroft and Solicitor General McAuley. Shortly afterward (2002), another agreement formalized the merger of the two nations visa, customs, and immigration databases.
There are also FBI and DEA agents permanently staffed in Canada, and there are RCMP officers who are stationed throughout the US on a permanent basis. Most major airports in Canada and the US have Customs Agents from the other country on staff and secure areas where you are considered to be essentially on foreign soil: they can and will arrest you and you are in their custody.
There is some sharing of data with European Databases but not the kind of cooperation that exists between Canada and the US; the European Parliament has not agreed to the same level of access and it's supposed to be limited to information on suspected terrorism or drug trafficking.
I could care less if they are Mexican, Canadian, or AnythingIAN.
What I care about is if they are legal and came through our "Front Door", rather than finding a crack or an open window to shimmy through.
However, Deportation DOES NOT WORK. Yes, we could deport a few buses to Mexico, buut most likely Mexico would lead an army to stop us. Instead, what needs to happen are felonies on hiring undocumented illegal aliens. Here in Columbus, Indiana we had a scare that INS was coming here to round up a bunch of Mexicans. From that, a Toyota factory shut its doors for 2 days. A few other factories also shut down, but their names eludes me.
I would, however, not make it a crime if employers were gave false information. Not checking is different than being handed bad (but looks good) information. The active denying of jobs would raise US prices and make the Mexicans go back to their country and actually attempt to remove corruption and increase the standard of living through reform.
Except the fact that there's nothing Canada has to offer that we can't find elsewhere, for the same or less cost. You miss that point.
I got a DUI, I paid my fine, did the time, and I know going to Canada will be a hassle, so guess what: I WON'T BOTHER!!
Canadians that want to do business with me will come to the US, and I will go elsewhere on holiday. No loss for me, mega $$ of foreign currency lost for Canada.
Yeah, back when I was kid, it was trivial to cross in and out of Canada. Until today, I never once thought of being denied access to Canada (or Mexico). I do tend think of Canada (and Canadians) as having the right to come here and vica-versa. I have known of one Canadian who was denied a green card here, which absolutely shocked me. It was early 2002, but I figured it was just 9/11 backlash. Maybe not. I will adjust my thinking.
I spent the late 90's teaching coding around the states, and spent a decade in academia, so was exposed to a variety of folks from different places. What I found interesting was that overall, everybody was very friendly and hardworking. In fact, much more so than Americans. But I also realized that overall, these were the best of the best that culture has to offer. But it seems to me, that you are in a most unusual position of being better able to "judge" us. You have who are combined with just general travel situations.
Yeah, I watch CNN headlines, but the bulk of my news I obtain from the net. Keep in mind, that the freedom of the press was so that we can keep an eye on our government. And with a true hands off, it works. Sadly, since 9/11, the media is somewhat controlled by the feds (there is a LOT of stories that they are forbidden to run; A good example is to try to get 60 minutes to re-run the story about Sibel Edmunds; Give them a call and request it and their response is interesting). Combine that with competition and what you have is sensationalism. Of course, we have our Pravda; Fox news. It is run by and controlled by the GOP party; literally. One that you might enjoy is Meet the press, but it is nearly pure American politics, but very above board (the way nightline and even CNN used to be)
I like to go to 2 different local rags here since they had a different POV (Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News). Now, they tend to say similar things. In addition, I try to mix in BBC and when I have time, Pravda, www.xinhuanet.com, and Aljazeera. I find more critical thinking about America's foreign policies in other countries's rag, than our own. Of course, I do know that we have Aljazeera.net (and probably the others) being fed through the NSA. There was a time that I did a trace route and spotted the packets going right through a NSA arena.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
--"So, I am leaving Southern California for the mountains of Colorado...
l .cfm?news_index=106
where the infection is almost as bad, but at least I can retreat into my
cave in the mountains and watch the world fall apart from the safety of
my own land"
Before you go you might like to check with the Ford Foundation first
what their plans are for the area you're moving to.
http://www.fordfound.org/news/view_speeches_detai
--"And we fund such organizations as the Mexican American Legal Defense
and Educational Fund, the Women's Law Fund, and the National Council of
La Raza, which work to strengthen their communities' capacities to
participate in American society."
if its too much trouble to go visit, stay home and spend your traveling dollars in your home country instead.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
It's not about a law-to-law parity. Both Canadian and American societies have a similar set of laws and values, but each society puts a different emphasis on each. The fact that some states will let you off with a wink and a ticket is irrelevant. American society apparently feels that something like smoking marijuana is a worse offence than DUI. Canadian society feels the opposite.
I'm actually glad we're turning back people who have DUI convictions. Drunk driving is a destructive offense that endangers the lives of the people around you. If you have such little regard for the well being of the people in your own community, then chances are you're not going to have much regard for people outside your community.
Oops, I guess I made a mistake, maybe New London is in Quebec not Ontario. Leaving Detroit I drove east a few hours to get there.
FalconShould there be a Law?
My favorite song of her's is "Good Morning Heartache". Then again that was the first song of her's heard that I know of. I knew a dancer that practiced dancing to the song for a stage performance I was working on, back then I jazz danced and worked on dance performances and plays for the theatre stage. If only I still danced, the last tyme I did I took a ballet class for physical therapy after an accident but I wasn't able to dance like I used to.
FalconOoh, I loved the movie "Ladyhawk". Then again I love other period movies as well and I used to attend SCA, The Society for Creative Anachronism meetings and events.
Should there be a Law?
Has nothing to do with 9/11. That's the big mistake you Americans make. This BS all started when Bush came into power. And they/you (search your soul) even re-elected him. Go figure....
i mean, they were polite about it. but it was annoying as hell. they did let me through but... i will not say i felt 'welcomed' by it. i didnt feel welcomed until i got to the little station down the road that gave me a free pin, a nice map, and then like 500 hours later after driving over the flattest land on the entire planet, i was in beautiful downtown regina.
Hey Hemoglobin, help me out here. I have been calling and emailing and getting nowhere. I was busted for possession (marijuana under 2oz) and paraphernalia, Class B and C misdemeanors respectively, here in Texas in 1999. I was planning to fly into Vancouver to visit a friend in August. What are the odds that I will get sent home? I initially figured that I would apply for the approval of rehabilitation, but no one will tell me if my offense is of the $200 or $1000 variety, or give me any assurance that I can get this done before August. Any ideas? I was going to buy plane tickets yesterday; I'm glad I held off now. :( I know you're not the burning bush but I wanted to at least get an idea of what to do.
absolute drivel. You really have no idea what you are talking about. You should learn to spell, learn some basic grammatical rules, and finally learn how to construct a proper argument. Then you can come back to slashdot and post with the grownups.
The idiots on slashdot these days! Geez! I can remember the days when intelligent people posted here.