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."

Comments

WOW

[falcon5768]

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!

Re:WOW

[abscissa]

Or president, if, like Bush, you were born with a silver spoon.. in your nose.

Re:WOW

[Southpaw018]

A 30 year old minor drug conviction with a completely clean record since then, like the guy cited in the article, can be safely discounted. Senator or anything else, it's usually safe to say that the person in question has cleaned themselves up. Only in rare cases might that be untrue.

Re:WOW

[xtracto]

FTFS:
causing immigration hassles worldwide."

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

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

How is that for a police state?

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

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

NMMDIDGAF.

So...

[yogurtforthesoul]

I guess the border patrol will switch over to the string tied sweatpants.

Look at the bright side

[Anonymous Coward]

So that means that Bush won't be traveling to Canada any time soon, due to his DUI conviction?

Re:Look at the bright side

[MarkRose]

British Columbia's Premier, Gordon Campbell, got a DUI while in Hawaii. Bush would fit right in.

Re:Look at the bright side

[garcia]

I crossed the border on a geocaching trip to Winnipeg and we were stopped and held for an hour by the Canadian border agents. After we waited for them to stop standing around chatting and deal with us (which was 35 minutes of the hour we were there) they began to interview a group of three men that were waiting before us. The conversation with the border patrol agent went something like this:

Agent: "Sir, according to our records obtained from the Minnesota State Patrol, you were stopped for DUI in April 2006. When you were asked if you had any prior incidents and you said, 'no' you lied. You are not to lie to a Border Patrol Agent at any time."

Crosser: "I haven't been convicted yet."

Agent: "I didn't ask if you were convicted."

---

Agent: "Sir, according to our records you were convicted of lewd conduct and indecent exposure in March of 2006. When I asked you if you had any prior convictions and you said, 'no', you lied. You are not to lie to a Border Patrol Agent at any time."

Crosser: "It was reduced to a lesser charge!"

Agent: "I asked if you had any prior incidents."

---

This went on for the next individual as well (I don't remember what he did wrong). After that they were released and permitted to go on to their next destination which was a wedding in Winnipeg. For us, they called us one by one into a back interview room and asked us a bunch of questions about our educational background and work history. I actually felt uncomfortable with some of the questions but answered them anyway.

They checked our passports and birth certificates and while the previous group had convictions and lied and we didn't, we still had our car searched for another 30 minutes before being allowed to move along.

So, even though Bush shouldn't be allowed into the country, these fools were. Bleh.

Re:Look at the bright side

[BlackEmperor]

I'm a Canadian permanent resident and I do a lot of travelling back and forth between the States (I have just a regular 10 year B1 visa for the States) and Canada.

In my experience Canadian border officials are dicks. They consistently give me a lot of hassle for some reason. I have no convictions of any kind, i mean just the fact that I'm a landed immigrant should give them a clue that my background has been thoroughly checked. But no. I also see them hassling many people who differ from their lilly white Caucasian definition of safe.

On the other hand US border officials are a breeze, never had a problem. The only time I ever had to wait for 30 minutes was crossing into the States at Buffalo, but I was travelling with a Russian then and he think he was the reason :)

Welcome to Canada!

[xdroop]

Hilarious that Americans are offended now that Canada is holding them to the same standard that American Boarder Services holds people wanting to enter the States. The difference is that even if you get an official Pardon in Canada -- Boarder Services doesn't recognize it! At least Americans have the potential to wipe the slate clean.

Hah!

Re:Welcome to Canada!

[alexandreracine]

At least Americans have the potential to wipe the slate clean

Really? That does not include the no-fly-list, does it?

Re:Welcome to Canada!

[beavis88]

Border. It's a fucking "border". And I here I was thinking Americans had a monopoly on bad schools.

This just in: your actions may have implications

[djh101010]

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.

A taste of their own medicin

[FredDC]

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...

Re:A taste of their own medicin

[pimpimpim]

Indeed. A lot of scientists for example were hindered by the US immigration service, e.g. by getting their visum for a congress only after the congress is already past. I had the impression that the US immigration got a little better the past few years. In the end, strict admission rules comes to shooting yourself in the foot. You'll need foreigners, be it for low-paid or extremely high-paid jobs, and not allowing new talent into your country is only bad for yourself.

Also, Canada will get a lot less tourists this way, did they ever think of that? I hope they get reasonable soon, and that other countries won't follow these ridiculous standards, otherwise we'll got a world-wide sovjet state as far as freedom of movement is involved.

Re:A taste of their own medicin

[Rob the Bold]

Well, it seems like US citizens are getting a taste of their own medicin...

It does sound like payback to me. Not that the US doesn't deserve it, especially with our jackass of a president, but Canada might be cutting off their nose to spite their face. Denying 50- and 60-something baby-boomers tourist entry into Canada because they toked up 30 or 40 years ago is not a good idea economically.

This quote is cute:

"People say, 'I've been going to Canada for 20 years and never had a problem,' '' Lesperance says. "It's classic. I say, 'Well, you've been getting away with it for 20 years.' ''

IOW, they've been "getting away" with spending tourist dollars for 20 years without interference. I doubt that Canadian hotelliers, restauranteurs and merchants had any moral qualms to selling rooms, meals and souvenirs to Americans "criminals" during that time.

This has much more general implications. If things go as the article says, and international tourists from all over the world are turned away from their foreign destinations, you can bet that industries that cater to this business will get the laws changed in their favor and relax restrictions on jaywalkers.

Re:A taste of their own medicin

[Alioth]

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

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

hmm

[xjmrufinix]

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?

Re:Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, blame Canada.

The good & the bad

[Adeptus_Luminati]

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

Re:The good & the bad

[Hemogoblin]

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

Re:The good & the bad

[Hemogoblin]

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

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

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

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

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

Re:The good & the bad

[Hemogoblin]

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

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

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.

Tit for Tat

[cdneng2]

This article isn't about Canada being a police state.

It was the US that wanted Canadians to have passports to enter the US. Canada implemented the same requirement for Americans entering Canada.

It was the US that wanted the sharing of criminal records for Canadians travelling into the United States, so Canada implemented the same thing for all Americans visiting Canada.

It was the US that instituted the tightened security measures, Canada just followed suit.

Canadians are already being screened this way entering the US, why are Americans upset when Canada starts doing the same thing?

Re:Tit for Tat

[Comboman]

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

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

Re:Tit for Tat

[i_should_be_working]

I suspect that the "security zone" around US and Canada didn't happen because (from an admittedly Canadian point of view) the US became unreasonable about what security meant. We don't want to turn away everyone that the US does. And there have been several deportation and prison incidents on behalf of the states that have soured the situation further.

For instance, right now there's 9 year old Canadian child being held in jail in Texas. His crime? His parents are Iranian. They were on their way to Canada and were planning on staying there as political refugess from Iran (the parents are not presently Canadian, but were living there illegally a few years ago). On their way to Canada, on a flight that was not supposed to even touch down in America, the plane landed in Texas because a passenger had a heart attack. Somehow security focuses on this family (surprise, surprise) and they get held. Now, they wouldn't have just been let in freely in Canada, but they wouldn't be in jail either. Especially not a child (he's Canadian anyway). They would be allowed to apply and go through the procedure of claiming refugee status as everyone else does. So I just don't think the two countries can agree on who should be let in, and I'd place the blame on incidents like this which the US has committed. Afterall, we haven't locked up any 9 year old American children.

As a frequent traveler

[canuck57]

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?

Well now...

[carvalhao]

... as someone who was recently refused a visitors' visa to the USA because I've worked 1 month in Saudi Arabia as a CRM consultant, I can't help a grin followed by an "oh bummer!"

I guess that the "keep our country to the locals" isn't so nice when you're on the other side of the border, isn't it?

Please mod me flamebait, but I really couldn't help it :D

Re:This just in: your actions may have implication

[Heian-794]

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?

As an American, this is good news

[analog_line]

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.

Re:Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Border Security kills Canadian tourism...

[ZugBonk]

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.

Know Your Place

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

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.

Re:Know Your Place

[VShael]

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

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

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

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

Re:Funny

[morgan_greywolf]

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

Re:Funny (you do worse)

[Chrisq]

No, but you can send them to Syria to be tortured (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar)

Re:Responsibility for your Actions

[mdwh2]

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?

Because two wrongs don't make a right.

Government A makes thinks worse for Citizen B. Government C responds by making things worse for Citizen D. Nope, I don't see how that's fair - Governments A and C end up increasing their powers, and citizens B and D lose out.

Re:This stuff happening? at the CANADIAN border?

[mikkelm]

Thank the Schengen agreement.

Re:Funny

[Canthros]

Provided they aren't Mexican. Or determined. Or sneaky. Or ...

I suspect that you may mean that's been illegal, not impossible.

Welcome to the North American Union

[gd23ka]

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?"

Re:This just in: your actions may have implication

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

"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?"

Only because up until now, the knowledge the the DWI wasn't readily available to the border patrol. As the article states - this was always the rule; the only thing that has changed is that they're actually enforcing it now.

It is short-sighted and foolish to only fight against a law/policy when it is enforced.

Re:Funny

[Forseti]

That just doesn't make any sense...

I live next to a Canadian border. Believe me, U.S. Customs/DHS turns people away.

I'm with you so far. I lived on the Canadian side of the US-Canada border for a long while, and had a job where we had to travel to the states often. People get turned back all the time, even without criminal records.

A friend of mine is a permanent U.S. resident, but is not a U.S. citizen.

So, green card then? Or American-Indian status? Aren't any other PERMANENT visa types that I'm aware of...

He was born in Canada. But, he's not a Canadian citizen either as he was born on a Native American reservation in Canada.

Now that just doesn't make any sense. If he was born in Canada, Indian or not, he's a Canadian citizen. Canadians are even allowed dual citizenship! Plus, if he has Aboriginal status, which requires more than just being born on a reservation, then he has rights to freely cross the US-Canada border in any direction and immigration & customs on either side can't do shit to stop him, as long as he has his Aboriginal ID with him. Otherwise, according to you, he had a green card because of him permanent resident status. So, isn't this just a question of someone trying to cross the border without ID (never a good idea) rather than some ridiculous citizenship issue?

Hysteria?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

We were warned.

[dubyadee]

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!

Re:This just in: your actions may have implication

[Forseti]

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

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

Exactly. This isn't really about data mining.

[perfessor multigeek]

C'mon, folks, look at the Canadian papers for five minutes and you'll know what this is really about. Canadians are enraged about "extraordinary rendition" of Canadians and their media has covered the issue intensely for years now. The DEA tried to seize Canadian property because a tunnel for running drugs ran under it. Multiple Canadians have been taken off and disappeared for years at a time, including a frickin' inkjet supply salesman who had the wrong five minute conversation with a guy suspected of being connected to Al Quada.

Canadians are pissed and they're sick of being treated like children by the Bush administration.

So this is tit for tat.

You Americans unfairly persecute Canadians? Fine. Let's see how you like it.

Even Conservatives are coming out in public to decry U.S. policies. Do you really think that none of them will find ways to get political capital out of this?

This isn't about better access to data. It's bloody well the best way yet they've found to show their anger. And don't forget for a moment that all of these cases create a bargaining chip.
"You want your citizens to have freeer access to Canada? Sure. What's in it for us?"

I guarantee you that all over the world people are laughing their asses off about this. And, frankly, I can see their point.

-Rustin

Re:Exactly. This isn't really about data mining.

[gstoddart]

Canadians are pissed and they're sick of being treated like children by the Bush administration.

So this is tit for tat.

No. That's absurd. This is a natural consequences of the US insistence of tighter border security and increased information sharing in a post 9/11 world. (OK, collectively we're a little pissed with the Bush administration, but that's not the point here.)

This is not Canada deciding to be petty and take it out on every day American citizens. This is what happens when the US government insists we do all of these things since they've been accusing us of having a porous border to let in terrorists, homosexuals, and communists. :-P

Hell, this is almost a predictable consequence of heightened concern, increased security, and more information sharing. Period.

We like our American neighbors -- we might not be able to handle your politicians and foreign policy. But, this isn't happening to punish every day American citizens because we're cranky about something.

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?"

Respectfully, sir, that is horseshit. We are under increased scrutiny to enter the US as well in case you're oblivious to this. As is everyone from all over the world -- entry into the US is under much heightened regulations. The US government is insisting that other nations change their passports if their citizens expect to be admitted; and it's a two way street.

This is applying existing laws in the current reality of international security. Nothing more.

Cheers

Re:This just in: your actions may have implication

[gstoddart]

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

I am not offended.

[LWATCDR]

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.

Re:This just in: your actions may have implication

[CreatureComfort]

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.

Opinion from an Immigration Officer

[Hemogoblin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Opinion from an Immigration Officer

[Hemogoblin]

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

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

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

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

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

Does that clear things up?

Re:On my second flight into Montreal...

[i_should_be_working]

I agree about the tourism thing, but I've had many more rude border security agents from the States than from Canada. When I was living in Canada I got more grief entering the US (I'm a US citizen) than I did entering Canada (on a student visa).

I would invariably get asked why I'm visiting the States and for how long. Why do I have to have a reason to go home? I could understand if they wanted to know what I was doing in Canada, but I can do anything I want for however long I want in the States. I always wanted to say something like "well, things aren't working out in Canada, so I'm returning here to go on welfare". I mean, what could they do, not let me in? It's my country. But I never had the guts. I guess they could've held me at the border for hours.

Re:Funny

[C_L_Lk]

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

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

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

Re:Funny

[Fozzyuw]

That is not true. The Green Card is exceptionally hard to acquire even for UK citizens...

His joke wasn't about it being easy to 'legally' live in the us as a foreign national. The irony is that it's easier to live in the U.S. illegally than trying to do it legally. Something I joke about with my foreign fiancee, that if we have too, we'll just honeymoon in Mexico and I'll sneak her back in. =P

Cheers,
Fozzy

Re:This stuff happening? at the CANADIAN border?

[Hemogoblin]

Get your facts straight. Canada did not pass a law that forbids Americans from entering Canada without a passport.

What ACTUALLY happened, was that the USA passed a law saying every person entering the USA needs a passport, including their own citizens. So, if you show up at the Canadian border you probably won't let in. Why? Because if we let you into Canada, you can't go home and we'll be stuck with you.

Poetic Justice

[Illogical Spock]

I agree that cases like the 30 years-old marijuana possession are ridiculous. But looking in the big picture, this is poetic justice!

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 :-)), 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.

How dare we!

[cdn]

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.

Canada is just giving it back.

[FatSean]

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...

Re:Canada is just giving it back.

[Curtman]

Yeah, because a guy who shoplifted 30 years ago is obviously of unscrupulous character and should be denied entry to our glorious Canada.

Why the hell not? The Americans have been denying people entry for stupid things like that for years. A friend of mine was turned back for a marijuana possession charge that he received as a minor, and that was before 9-11.

Re:Canada is just giving it back.

[statusbar]

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

--jeffk++

That's a great idea.

[Beardo the Bearded]

I'll buy the booze and rent them a car.

Does anyone know where you can rent a Pinto or Propane truck?

Minor ancient incidents?

[Tablizer]

I knew I should have returned that library book in 1977.

Re:Funny

[value_added]

A friend of mine is a permanent U.S. resident, but is not a U.S. citizen ...

Well, here's some first hand information from someone who is a Canadian who is a U.S. resident.

U.S. Customs officials are federal employees. No suprise there, but I wonder how many U.S. citizens has have had the pleasure of an encounter with one, say a security guard at federal court house? You know, the guy with the $4 buzz cut, gun in his holster, and no personality or sense of humour ready and eager to assert his power. And, quite frankly and typically, zero interest or patience with f'rnrs or their problems.

Crossing into Canada, well, you get a Canadian. The usual stereotype. Relaxed, friendly and good natured, doesn't take himself that seriously and tries to do a good job because he thinks it's the right thing to do. He's a product of a country that has had liberal immigration laws for decades, so he his outlook isn't tied into any sense of nationalism or a fear or dislike of immigrants.

The above two descriptions are valid irrespective of whether you're American or Canadian, or in which direction you're headed. Put another way, going into Canada is typically a breeze and comes with a "Have a nice visit", while crossing into the U.S. is an ugly experience, assuming, of course, you don't get turned away which happens on such a regular basis it's almost to be expected. And if you're a legal U.S. resident thinking you'll have no problems, you shouldn't be too outraged if the official decides to detain you or just decides to confiscate your residency card for an arbitrary reason before sending you back. It happened to me. Twice. I could recite the horror stories of friends, relatives and acquaintances from any number of nationalities (American included), so if I sound overly critical, know that I consider my own experiences fairly minor by comparison.

Canadians may be going through growing pains, and/or be influenced or pressured by their neighbour to the south, so border issues may be of greater concern, but I have few worries in that regard. It's the American side that distinguishes itself with nationalistic values, a concern about immigrants, worries of terrorists and terrorism, and a population where the average citizen is unlikely to have travelled outside of his state, let alone outside his country. Legitimate concerns there, perhaps, but that doesn't make the crossing any less miserable.

Re:crossing the US, Canadian border

[Ced_Ex]

Just a couple of weeks ago, I crossed into the US, and got "randomly selected" for a car search. In the holding area, all I see are other "randomly selected" people, all of whom were of visible minority (or majority depending on where you're from). That had me thinking that it wasn't so random as it appeared, until the guy that pulled out of the garage space I was assigned to. He was a single white male in his 50s or 60s. Sort of blows my theory away that day. At least the custom agents made it as quick as possible.

Coming back to Canada, the custom agent looked at me and my passenger and waved us through without checking our passports.

Two extremes, we need to meet in the middle ground somewhere.

Re:Funny

[Neoprofin]

The last time I went to Canada (summer 05) it was just the opposite.

Going into Canada one of the four of us didn't have a birth certificate or passport, our car was searched, our bottles of soda checked, our luggage rummaged through,the whole thing took probably an hour not counting the time we spent waiting for a team to tear through our shit.

Coming back we were hung over and barely intelligible, we failed to answer any of the guards questions coherently or logically, and we still never had to get out of our car even at at border crossing that is known for drug smuggling.

Re:This just in: your actions may have implication

[Darby]

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.