Well, we don't take into account the length of time since the offence when we're determining criminality. So yes, even after 10 years they would be inadmissible. HOWEVER, after someone is inadmissible they can still be found to be rehabilitated which removes the inadmissibility. We do take into account length of time since conviction when determining if someone is rehabilitated.
So short answer: yes they're inadmissible, but they would likely be found to be rehabilitiated so they can enter the country.
That's not TECHNICALLY true, it is possible that someone could be inadmissible for an ACT they did. For example, take a look at section A36(1)(c) of the IRPA. That's a very complicated section and we don't have it come up a lot, since if someone usually did something then they'd be convicted of it. That said, I seriously doubt Dick Cheney would be refused entry. Hell, our consulates hand waivers out to celebrities and sports stars like candy.
You make some interesting points so I'm quite happy to reply.
When someone is seeking entry into Canada, the offence they have been convicted of must be equated to a Canadian statute. There are some things you can do in the United States which are not considered serious, whereas they are serious offences in Canada. An example of this is "driving while intoxicated"; in the US it is usually a minor misdemeanor. However, in Canada, the same offence can get you up to 5 years in prison.
Another example is possession on marijuana. In Canada, possession of pot up to 20g is only considered a summary conviction. However, the USA has much stricter possession laws, and even has laws against the possession of paraphenalia (which Canada doesn't). If a Canadian was convicted of possession, he would get a fairly light sentence in Canada, but would likely be prevented from entering the USA.
I disagree with your last point about how we have an "arbitrary line" that decides whether or not someone is inadmissible. In fact, we ONLY look at the Canadian statute to determine how serious an offence is. The only time we look at an American statute is to see how that offence equates to Canadian law. Once we have determined what the offence equates to, we look at if it's an indictable offence and what the sentence would be.
If an offence would be punishable by indictment, then someone is inadmissible under A36(2)(B). If an offence is punishable by indictment and the person is liable to a term of imprisonment of more than 10 years, then someone is inadmissible under A36(1)(B). If someone is convicted of a criminal offence that is punishable by summary conviction, then they may or may not be inadmissible. The last one has very strict and defined rules, but since its a bit complicated I won't go into it now. Suffice to say, there are very definate rules as to whether someone is inadmissible or not, and it is entirely based on how serious the offence is in Canada.
Well, perhaps I mispoke. When I say criminal offence I suppose I should clairfy and state "serious criminal offence". REALLY minor offences such as littering or speeding will not appear on the NCIC database. Some misdemeanors are entered in the NCIC, so some "minor" offences will be visible to a border guard.
However, it is a moot point because even if these really minor offences did appear on your record, it would still not prevent you from entering Canada. There is a certain "seriousness" required to be found inadmissible. Littering and speeding are not considered serious enough.
You make some good points, but I'm still not convinced of your position.
When determining who can and cannot enter Canada, the interests of Canadians come first. It is our land, our country, and we don't have to allow anyone into it if we don't want to. An analogy would be for someone to come to my front door and asks to come into my house "just for a look around." Would you agree that they don't have a right to enter without my permission? I agree with the principle of individual freedom of movement, but I believe there are some reasonable limitations.
One reasonable limitation is to prevent the entry of people that have exhibited behaviour that is unacceptable in Canadian soceity, as determined by our laws. You could argue that past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour, and therefore if someone has committed a criminal offence in the past it is likely that they would commit offences in the future. Since this would be unacceptable to Canadians, we prevent these people from entering the country in the first place. Going back to my house example... if I knew the person had smashed other houses, I would be hesitant about letting him enter.
Finally, we do realize that not everyone who has committed an offence is going to be a danger to Canadian soceity. We take into account how serious the offences were, how long ago they happened, and the circumstances were surrounding them. It is possible for an officer or the Minister to make a determination that the person is rehabilited and is no longer a danger to Canada. Hence, it is a reasonable limitation and not just a blanket restriction.
I don't think I've ever seen "trespass" on a criminal record from the NCIC. Also, they don't include traffic violations such as speeding tickets.
If someone is convicted of a criminal offence, it doesn't matter what the circumstances were surrounding the incident when you're determining inadmissibility. Once a conviction has been found to equate to a canadian statute, then they are inadmissible. Only after that do I take into account whether or not it was a peaceful protest (etc) when making my determination whether they could be admitted into Canada on a permit.
I don't personally know their criminal records. What exactly were they convicted of? Which offences? When did they happen? What were the circumstances surrounding each event? What was the court's judgement? What were the sentences, if any? From those questions, and others, you can determine whether someone is criminally inadmissible. If they've been found inadmissible, you can see if they can be deemed rehabilitiated or not. If they cannot be deemed rehabilitated, they require a permit to be admitted into Canada. Permits take into account why they're coming to Canada, how long their staying, and so on.
So no, I can't tell you if they would be admissible, since I don't have enough information.
There are many people on the NCIC just because they have a single misdemeanor arrest. However, a record of an arrest usually won't make you inadmissible to Canada on it's own, though it certainly doesn't help. See the other thread for way more information.
I was generalizing. Like I said, there are different categories of criminal inadmissibility. We take into account the types of offences, the sentences, how long ago the offences took place, and so on. Also, if you are inadmissible, it's possible to obtain a temporary resident permit to overcome that inadmissibility.
I'm sure there's lots of people who are inadmissible to Canada. I'm not going to decide for you whether a large group of people is inadmissible, simply based on the possibility they were unjustly convicted of an offence. We decide things on a case by case basis.
Yes, we always tell someone what they're inadmissible for. In cases of really serious criminality, we write a formal section 44 report which is reviewed by a superior officer and also subject to review by the Minister. We don't just make abitrary decisions and we are accountable for what we decide.
I've had many people with a record on NCIC that have said, no no I wasn't convicted of that. That doesn't bother me; you'd be amazed how many people lie about their criminal record. Usually they admit to it after a few minutes of questioning anyway.
If you're asking whether someone could deliberately forge a criminal record, it's possible. I don't run the database, I just use it. It's the best information I have though and so far it's been very reliable, so I think I trust it in general. If it's really necessary, it's possible to double-check a criminal record by contacting the different court houses or police departments, but we usually don't find that necessary in regular cases.
It's not a court of law. We are not privy to the events surrounding the criminal case, nor do we make findings of law on the case. The judge did that when you had your trial, where the crown had to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge found the person guilty, end of story.
Anyone we refuse entry into Canada is not a Canadian citizen nor a permanent resident of Canada. They don't have a right to enter the country. If they're seeking entry into Canada, they must prove they're not inadmissible. If we didn't make decisions on the balance of probabilities, we would let a whole lot of questionable people into the country. The US government complains enough about how "slack" we are as it is. Offtopic, but that kinda pisses me off.
It would show where the arrests took place, which police department, and what year. That's about it.
I would treat them as anyone else who had a criminal record. I can't make a new finding of facts or guilt right at the border, so I go with what the judge decided. If he thought he/she was guilty for offences committed while protesting, so be it.
If you were convicted of a criminal offence, it's going to show up on your record no matter what (unless the clerk is busy, like I said). It seems reasonable that people making decisions based on criminal convictions should have access to it.
Now, keep in mind that we don't have a one-size-fits-all criminal category. There are three degrees of seriousness for criminal offences that deal with: summary, indictable 5 years imprisonment, and indictable 10 years imprisonment. If you're simply charged with a single misdemeanor from a long time ago and it doesn't fall into a higher category, it is unlikely that you'll be inadmissible for that single offence.
Also, if thesse protestors have numerous criminal convictions why should they have special priveledges just because they're protestors? How am I supposed to know, right at the border, whether or not they were unfairly convicted of breaking the peace? In theory, the court in which they were tried was supposed to make findings of fact and law. If these people who had all the evidence thought the protestor was guilty, then how am I, someone who has no access to the events, supposed to say whether or not it's unfair?
I'm not attacking you personally, you just brought up the point of "peaceful protests".
Addenum: I suppose that if I had information that you were going to commit a criminal offence while in Canada, that may be grounds for inadmissibility. I've never had it come up before, and I don't have time to look it up now.
I worked as an Immigration Officer with the Canada Border Services Agency. My duties included evaluating whether individuals were admissible to Canada based on the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The following is my personal opinion and I don't represent the Government of Canada. Also, this is not legal advice and I accept no liability.
Yes, we do have access to NCIC the FBI criminal database and we do use it as supporting evidence when we're determining if someone is inadmissible to Canada based on criminality. However, I never seen anything in the database that is not: (a) an arrest record, (b) a record of court proceedings, or (c) a warrrent/lookout/restraining order.
I can tell you that "listing in this database" is only equivalent to "a conviction" when it says exactly what you were charged and convicted of. For example, it will show you were arrested for Assault on such and such date. The next record will show that you appeared in court on such and such a date. It will then show the judge's opinion, followed by a sentence if you were found guilty.
The only ambiguity arises when the offence is not a serious misdemeanor. The problem occurs because it is up to the individual state court's to file the necessary paperwork with NCIC to have the information put into the database. Sometimes these clerks are busy and backlogged and never get around to inputting the judgement of the court into the database. In that instance, it will show you were arrested for "driving while intoxicated" but will not show if you were found guilty or not guilty. In this case, the onus is on the individual entering Canada to prove that they are not inadmissible based on criminality. The reason is that we officers are making a decision on the balance of probabilities and having evidence of possible criminal activity usually outweighs the individual's word.
I have never had someone's criminal record simply say "Peace Activist" or something equally silly. Unless you were convicted of a criminal offence, or it's reasonable for me to believe you have, then you are not going to be refused entry for criminality.
The above may contain some errors or it may be unclear. I don't have time to proofread it before work.
Note that the "lifenews" article you're referencing was published in 2006... 5 years after the study came out. A little late and ignoring a lot of developements in the field, yes?
The author cited Levitt in the first paragraph of her paper. She also included abortion and police per capita in her model. I think perhaps she's a bit ahead of you.
Are you trying to argue against the results provided in the study? I can't tell from what you've posted, since you don't actually make an argument.
This author works for the National Bureau of Economic Research. She also works in the department of Economics and Amherst College. The way this study is presented is how ALL economic papers are written. Have you any idea how hard it is to set up an "experiment" for economic theories? The best approximation is to capture time series data that someone else has collected (usually for other purposes), and then to analyse it. The "prediction and experiment" you mentioned is exactly what she's doing in her paper. She's taking data (experiment) and doing statistical analysis on it. As for sticking her neck out, she wrote this paper to be peer reviewed! What else do you want?
Slashdot Mirror
My pleasure. If something is still unclear or you have other questions, feel free to ask.
Well, we don't take into account the length of time since the offence when we're determining criminality. So yes, even after 10 years they would be inadmissible. HOWEVER, after someone is inadmissible they can still be found to be rehabilitated which removes the inadmissibility. We do take into account length of time since conviction when determining if someone is rehabilitated.
So short answer: yes they're inadmissible, but they would likely be found to be rehabilitiated so they can enter the country.
That's not TECHNICALLY true, it is possible that someone could be inadmissible for an ACT they did. For example, take a look at section A36(1)(c) of the IRPA. That's a very complicated section and we don't have it come up a lot, since if someone usually did something then they'd be convicted of it. That said, I seriously doubt Dick Cheney would be refused entry. Hell, our consulates hand waivers out to celebrities and sports stars like candy.
You make some interesting points so I'm quite happy to reply.
When someone is seeking entry into Canada, the offence they have been convicted of must be equated to a Canadian statute. There are some things you can do in the United States which are not considered serious, whereas they are serious offences in Canada. An example of this is "driving while intoxicated"; in the US it is usually a minor misdemeanor. However, in Canada, the same offence can get you up to 5 years in prison.
Another example is possession on marijuana. In Canada, possession of pot up to 20g is only considered a summary conviction. However, the USA has much stricter possession laws, and even has laws against the possession of paraphenalia (which Canada doesn't). If a Canadian was convicted of possession, he would get a fairly light sentence in Canada, but would likely be prevented from entering the USA.
I disagree with your last point about how we have an "arbitrary line" that decides whether or not someone is inadmissible. In fact, we ONLY look at the Canadian statute to determine how serious an offence is. The only time we look at an American statute is to see how that offence equates to Canadian law. Once we have determined what the offence equates to, we look at if it's an indictable offence and what the sentence would be.
If an offence would be punishable by indictment, then someone is inadmissible under A36(2)(B). If an offence is punishable by indictment and the person is liable to a term of imprisonment of more than 10 years, then someone is inadmissible under A36(1)(B). If someone is convicted of a criminal offence that is punishable by summary conviction, then they may or may not be inadmissible. The last one has very strict and defined rules, but since its a bit complicated I won't go into it now. Suffice to say, there are very definate rules as to whether someone is inadmissible or not, and it is entirely based on how serious the offence is in Canada.
Well, perhaps I mispoke. When I say criminal offence I suppose I should clairfy and state "serious criminal offence". REALLY minor offences such as littering or speeding will not appear on the NCIC database. Some misdemeanors are entered in the NCIC, so some "minor" offences will be visible to a border guard.
However, it is a moot point because even if these really minor offences did appear on your record, it would still not prevent you from entering Canada. There is a certain "seriousness" required to be found inadmissible. Littering and speeding are not considered serious enough.
You make some good points, but I'm still not convinced of your position.
When determining who can and cannot enter Canada, the interests of Canadians come first. It is our land, our country, and we don't have to allow anyone into it if we don't want to. An analogy would be for someone to come to my front door and asks to come into my house "just for a look around." Would you agree that they don't have a right to enter without my permission? I agree with the principle of individual freedom of movement, but I believe there are some reasonable limitations.
One reasonable limitation is to prevent the entry of people that have exhibited behaviour that is unacceptable in Canadian soceity, as determined by our laws. You could argue that past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour, and therefore if someone has committed a criminal offence in the past it is likely that they would commit offences in the future. Since this would be unacceptable to Canadians, we prevent these people from entering the country in the first place. Going back to my house example... if I knew the person had smashed other houses, I would be hesitant about letting him enter.
Finally, we do realize that not everyone who has committed an offence is going to be a danger to Canadian soceity. We take into account how serious the offences were, how long ago they happened, and the circumstances were surrounding them. It is possible for an officer or the Minister to make a determination that the person is rehabilited and is no longer a danger to Canada. Hence, it is a reasonable limitation and not just a blanket restriction.
Does that explain things better?
I don't think I've ever seen "trespass" on a criminal record from the NCIC. Also, they don't include traffic violations such as speeding tickets.
If someone is convicted of a criminal offence, it doesn't matter what the circumstances were surrounding the incident when you're determining inadmissibility. Once a conviction has been found to equate to a canadian statute, then they are inadmissible. Only after that do I take into account whether or not it was a peaceful protest (etc) when making my determination whether they could be admitted into Canada on a permit.
I don't personally know their criminal records. What exactly were they convicted of? Which offences? When did they happen? What were the circumstances surrounding each event? What was the court's judgement? What were the sentences, if any? From those questions, and others, you can determine whether someone is criminally inadmissible. If they've been found inadmissible, you can see if they can be deemed rehabilitiated or not. If they cannot be deemed rehabilitated, they require a permit to be admitted into Canada. Permits take into account why they're coming to Canada, how long their staying, and so on.
So no, I can't tell you if they would be admissible, since I don't have enough information.
Speaking as someone who has used NCIC extensively (See this thread http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=344011&cid=21169011 further down) ...
There are many people on the NCIC just because they have a single misdemeanor arrest. However, a record of an arrest usually won't make you inadmissible to Canada on it's own, though it certainly doesn't help. See the other thread for way more information.
Having used NCIC extensively (see my above posts)...
Yes a single arrest can get you in the NCIC. That usually won't make you inadmissible to Canada on its own though.
See http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=344011&cid=21169391
Yes.
:)
I used crown because that's what I'm used to.
I was generalizing. Like I said, there are different categories of criminal inadmissibility. We take into account the types of offences, the sentences, how long ago the offences took place, and so on. Also, if you are inadmissible, it's possible to obtain a temporary resident permit to overcome that inadmissibility.
I'm sure there's lots of people who are inadmissible to Canada. I'm not going to decide for you whether a large group of people is inadmissible, simply based on the possibility they were unjustly convicted of an offence. We decide things on a case by case basis.
Yes, we always tell someone what they're inadmissible for. In cases of really serious criminality, we write a formal section 44 report which is reviewed by a superior officer and also subject to review by the Minister. We don't just make abitrary decisions and we are accountable for what we decide.
I've had many people with a record on NCIC that have said, no no I wasn't convicted of that. That doesn't bother me; you'd be amazed how many people lie about their criminal record. Usually they admit to it after a few minutes of questioning anyway.
If you're asking whether someone could deliberately forge a criminal record, it's possible. I don't run the database, I just use it. It's the best information I have though and so far it's been very reliable, so I think I trust it in general. If it's really necessary, it's possible to double-check a criminal record by contacting the different court houses or police departments, but we usually don't find that necessary in regular cases.
It's not a court of law. We are not privy to the events surrounding the criminal case, nor do we make findings of law on the case. The judge did that when you had your trial, where the crown had to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge found the person guilty, end of story.
Anyone we refuse entry into Canada is not a Canadian citizen nor a permanent resident of Canada. They don't have a right to enter the country. If they're seeking entry into Canada, they must prove they're not inadmissible. If we didn't make decisions on the balance of probabilities, we would let a whole lot of questionable people into the country. The US government complains enough about how "slack" we are as it is. Offtopic, but that kinda pisses me off.
It would show where the arrests took place, which police department, and what year. That's about it. I would treat them as anyone else who had a criminal record. I can't make a new finding of facts or guilt right at the border, so I go with what the judge decided. If he thought he/she was guilty for offences committed while protesting, so be it.
If you were convicted of a criminal offence, it's going to show up on your record no matter what (unless the clerk is busy, like I said). It seems reasonable that people making decisions based on criminal convictions should have access to it.
Now, keep in mind that we don't have a one-size-fits-all criminal category. There are three degrees of seriousness for criminal offences that deal with: summary, indictable 5 years imprisonment, and indictable 10 years imprisonment. If you're simply charged with a single misdemeanor from a long time ago and it doesn't fall into a higher category, it is unlikely that you'll be inadmissible for that single offence.
Also, if thesse protestors have numerous criminal convictions why should they have special priveledges just because they're protestors? How am I supposed to know, right at the border, whether or not they were unfairly convicted of breaking the peace? In theory, the court in which they were tried was supposed to make findings of fact and law. If these people who had all the evidence thought the protestor was guilty, then how am I, someone who has no access to the events, supposed to say whether or not it's unfair?
I'm not attacking you personally, you just brought up the point of "peaceful protests".
Addenum: I suppose that if I had information that you were going to commit a criminal offence while in Canada, that may be grounds for inadmissibility. I've never had it come up before, and I don't have time to look it up now.
Look it up in IRPA if you're interested http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/I-2.5//20071030/en?command=home&caller=SI&fragment=immigration&search_type=all&day=30&month=10&year=2007&search_domain=cs&showall=L&statuteyear=all&lengthannual=50&length=50
I worked as an Immigration Officer with the Canada Border Services Agency. My duties included evaluating whether individuals were admissible to Canada based on the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The following is my personal opinion and I don't represent the Government of Canada. Also, this is not legal advice and I accept no liability.
Yes, we do have access to NCIC the FBI criminal database and we do use it as supporting evidence when we're determining if someone is inadmissible to Canada based on criminality. However, I never seen anything in the database that is not: (a) an arrest record, (b) a record of court proceedings, or (c) a warrrent/lookout/restraining order.
I can tell you that "listing in this database" is only equivalent to "a conviction" when it says exactly what you were charged and convicted of. For example, it will show you were arrested for Assault on such and such date. The next record will show that you appeared in court on such and such a date. It will then show the judge's opinion, followed by a sentence if you were found guilty.
The only ambiguity arises when the offence is not a serious misdemeanor. The problem occurs because it is up to the individual state court's to file the necessary paperwork with NCIC to have the information put into the database. Sometimes these clerks are busy and backlogged and never get around to inputting the judgement of the court into the database. In that instance, it will show you were arrested for "driving while intoxicated" but will not show if you were found guilty or not guilty. In this case, the onus is on the individual entering Canada to prove that they are not inadmissible based on criminality. The reason is that we officers are making a decision on the balance of probabilities and having evidence of possible criminal activity usually outweighs the individual's word.
I have never had someone's criminal record simply say "Peace Activist" or something equally silly. Unless you were convicted of a criminal offence, or it's reasonable for me to believe you have, then you are not going to be refused entry for criminality.
The above may contain some errors or it may be unclear. I don't have time to proofread it before work.
No, anyone can't sue anyone. You must have "standing" to sue.
Great post.
Also, I think we need to define a Godwin's Law for car analogies.
While what I said in my last post was true, the lifenews article is refering to the AEI conference that was held in 2006, not the 2001 paper by Lott and Whitley. http://www.aei.org/events/filter.,eventID.1285/summary.asp
Consider that Lott and Whitley's paper was published in 2001. Levitt has since replied to critics (pdf) (Journal of Human Resources, 2004, 39(1), pp. 29-49) and refined his theory.
Note that the "lifenews" article you're referencing was published in 2006... 5 years after the study came out. A little late and ignoring a lot of developements in the field, yes?
The author cited Levitt in the first paragraph of her paper. She also included abortion and police per capita in her model. I think perhaps she's a bit ahead of you.
Are you trying to argue against the results provided in the study? I can't tell from what you've posted, since you don't actually make an argument.
This author works for the National Bureau of Economic Research. She also works in the department of Economics and Amherst College. The way this study is presented is how ALL economic papers are written. Have you any idea how hard it is to set up an "experiment" for economic theories? The best approximation is to capture time series data that someone else has collected (usually for other purposes), and then to analyse it. The "prediction and experiment" you mentioned is exactly what she's doing in her paper. She's taking data (experiment) and doing statistical analysis on it. As for sticking her neck out, she wrote this paper to be peer reviewed! What else do you want?