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."
FYI, I'm a Immmigration Officer with CBSA. That said, this message is my personal opinion and I do not represent the government. This scale currently exists [see Immigration Refugee Act, A36(1)(b) and A36(2)(b)]. If the crime you committed is equivalent to an indictable Canadian offence (ie not a misdemeanor), then you're inadmissable but its not impossible to get entry. Permits and pardons will allow you into the country. If you commit an offence which would give more than 10 years in prison (ie manslaughter, theft over $5000, etc), then you're inadmissible and its damn hard to get a permit into the country. That is, unless you're a celebrity. Bloody government. Also, if the offence was more than 10 years ago, you didn't commit any OTHER offences, and the offence was the first category, its as if the offence never existed. This article is bullshit media talking, what the hell do they know? Marijuanna possession isn't even an indictable offence in Canada unless its more than 22g. If anything, the guy was inadmissible for the DUI from seven years ago. (recall the 10 year rule, and he has at least two offences). I don't know anything else about this guy except from the article, but our laws are pretty misrepresented in the article.
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.
Do NOT take any action on this advice. An officer obviously can't make a judgement on a persons inadmissibility except when they're seeking entry. Different officers might equate offences differently because there is a little grey area. This might give you a general idea however. If you're planning on coming to Canada, contact the nearest Canadian Consulate. Fax, write, or go in person since they rarely answer the phone.
g a:s_7::bo-ga:l_1//en?page=3&isPrinting=false#codes e:36
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.
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.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
Actually, border control is that nuanced an art. The regular "border officers" (ie customs officers) don't go through your entire record at the booth. They send you to the immigration office where we look at each case individually, and personally look up what the offence would equate to. Its not that hard actually, since there are really only around 20 common offences and we have them memorized. We've been evaluating these offences for years, so unless anything really obscure comes up somebody has probably dealt with it before.
g a:l_1-gb:l_4//en#anchorbo-ga:l_1-gb:l_4
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.