Going to Canada? Check your past-Visitors with minor criminal records turned back

[fed-up]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/23/NEVIUS.TMP

Going to Canada? Check your past Visitors with minor criminal records turned back at border

C.W. NEVIUS
Friday, February 23, 2007

..snip

Take the case of 55-year-old Lake Tahoe resident Greg Felsch. Stopped at the border in Vancouver this month at the start of a planned five-day ski trip, he was sent back to the United States because of a DUI conviction seven years ago. Not that he had any idea what was going on when he was told at customs: "Your next stop is immigration.''

...snip

While Canada officially has barred travelers convicted of criminal offenses for years, attorneys say post-9/11 information-gathering, combined with a sweeping agreement between Canada and the United States to share data, has resulted in a spike in phone calls from concerned travelers.
...snip

So it isn't as if rules have stiffened. But what has changed is the way the information is gathered. In the wake of 9/11, Canada and the United States formed a partnership that has dramatically increased what Lesperance calls "the data mining'' system at the border.

The Smart Border Action Plan, as it is known, combines Canadian intelligence with extensive U.S. Homeland Security information. The partnership began in 2002, but it wasn't until recently that the system was refined.

...snip

[babylonsister]

1. Holy shit! So they get a passport, and then aren't allowed to enter?

Here's another big difference today involving kids. Seems DHS changed their rules:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2742038

[fed-up]

2. I wonder if my hitchhiking ticket from when I was 17 and going to Day on the Green

in Oakland is still in my file somewhere???

I really, really think this world is spinning too far out of control.....

[rodeodance]

8. "A conviction for marijuana possession. In 1975."

Felsch was ushered into a room. "There must have been 75 people in line," he says. "We were there for three hours. One woman was in tears. A guy was sent back for having a medical marijuana card. I felt like a felon with an ankle bracelet.''

Or ask the well-to-do East Bay couple who flew to British Columbia this month for an eight-day ski vacation at the famed Whistler Chateau, where rooms run to $500 a night. They'd made the trip many times, but were surprised at the border to be told that the husband would have to report to "secondary'' immigration.

There, in a room he estimates was filled with 60 other concerned travelers, he was told he was "a person who was inadmissible to Canada.'' The problem? A conviction for marijuana possession.

In 1975.

Welcome to the new world of border security. Unsuspecting Americans are turning up at the Canadian border expecting clear sailing, only to find that their past -- sometimes their distant past -- is suddenly an issue.

[bananas]

12. A lot of states decriminalized possession around that time

I wonder if that makes a difference?

[4dsc]

18. Makes no difference now!

I have a brother who drives semi trucks who needed to go to Canada. They looked up his record and found a DUI from 1970's. He was lucky though. It cost him $300 to get into Canada and was told he had 72 hours to complete his job and be out of Canada. He ask the border lady "what if I break down" and she replied "Be out in 72 hours or else".

Canada is a beautiful place to visit but its obviously they don't want me to live there..

[iverglas]

20. yes, big bad old Canada ...

"Canada is a beautiful place to visit but its obviously they don't want me to live there."

I wouldn't know. But I might keep in mind that most countries in the world don't want most people in the world to live there -- simply because pretty much all countries in the world don't have room for another few billion people in their population.

http://www.criminallawyers.ca/newslett/19-4/segal.htm (from 1998)

One of the authors is a former professional acquaintance of mine, a Cdn lawyer who is also a member of a US state bar.

The Impact of Canadian Convictions on Admissibility to the United States

Recently, attention has been drawn to the apparent crackdown on Canadians crossing to the United States. A long-standing problem, however, is inadmissibility of persons with a criminal record. In all but a few exceptions, individuals with criminal convictions are excluded from and inadmissible to the United States. Persons who have been convicted of a crime, even convictions decades old, continue to suffer the consequences of the crime, when seeking to enter the United States without prior permission to do so. Currently, prior permission to enter the United States for those with prior convictions, even very minor convictions, can take anywhere from six to nine months to obtain for Canadian citizens, while strangely non-Canadian citizens can often obtain permission in a few days.

... Unlike crimes of moral turpitude, merely committing a drug crime (e.g., possession, manufacturing, transportation or sale of drugs), with no criminal intent or knowledge, is grounds for exclusion, regardless of the penalty imposed. On this view, President Bill Clinton would be inadmissible were he not a U.S. citizen, since he has publicly admitted to possession of a joint of marihuana many years ago (although he "did not inhale"). Furthermore, mere proof of addiction is grounds for inadmissibility. The law also provides for inadmissibility of individuals whom an officer has "reason to believe" is an "illicit trafficker." A conviction is not necessary; the mere suspicion gives rise to inadmissibility.

We all have our own funny little ways, eh?

[Amonester]

45. You don't honestly think that "the other way around" is "easier" don't you?

Canadian truck drivers who were convicted of "possession of small quantities of cannabis for personal use" decades ago - and who "don't do that stuff anymore" for years - must pay costly U.S. Custom waivers just to "do their f**cking job" of travelling across the US-Canada borders sometimes many times a week!! The "problem" is so bad that many of the hiring companies had "to take the extra charge" as "operating expenses" in order for them to "find enough workers" that would allow them to just stay in business!!

http://www.canadianlegal.org/travel_waivers.php

Criminal Record? Gain Legal Entry to the United States
What is a United States Waiver of Inadmissibility "Waiver"?

If you have a criminal record, you may be required to complete one of the following in order to gain legal entry to the United States:

* apply for and be granted a Waiver of Inadmissibility (also referred to as a Waiver for Excludability, Waiver, Criminal Record Waiver or US Travel Waiver),
* correct the conditions that rendered you excludable, such as your health; or
* provide evidence that you are not excludable (Laws are complex and are not always interpreted the same. Individuals are often refused in error or because they do not have proof of their admissibility).

This article applies to people who require advance permission to enter the United States due to inadmissibility involving the following applications and forms:

* Form I-192 Application for Advance Permission to Enter as Nonimmigrant ( I192 )
* Form I-212 Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the U.S. After Deportation or Removal ( I212 )
* Form I-601 Application for Waiver of Grounds of Excludability ( I601 )
* Form G-325A Biographic Information ( G325A )
* Form DS 156 Nonimmigrant Visa Application ( DS156 )
* Form DS 157 Supplemental Nonimmigrant Visa Application ( DS157 )

Read on and you will learn all about Waivers, including what makes a person inadmissible to the United States and how to apply for legal entry.
Criminal Record Travel Risks

Do you have a criminal record? You may be inadmissible to the United States! If you are inadmissible, you must have a U.S. Waiver of Inadmissibility (or Visa Waiver for most non-Canadians from Countries in the Visa Waiver Program) to gain legal entry to the United States and avoid the risk of:

* Arrest
* Confiscation of Your Vehicle
* Conviction
* Deportation
* Detention
* Embarrassment
* Fines
* Inability to Visit Sick Family or Friends
* Inability to Travel Internationally via the U.S.

* Incarceration
* Lost Prepaid Travel Expenses
* Lost Business Opportunities
* Missed Vacation Opportunity
* Peace of Mind
* Refused entry
* Refused Medical Travel and Treatment
* Removal
* Voluntary Departure

People traveling to the United States with you face the same risk as youbecause of your inadmissibility! If you are traveling with a friend or relative that is aware of your inadmissibility and you do not have a Waiver, your friend or relative could be subject to all of the above risks AND they can be charged and convicted with harboring an illegal alienan offence that would make them inadmissible to the United States!

Refusal to the United States can be devastating or extremely disappointing and affect situations such as:

* Business Travel (meetings / training / trade shows)
* Pleasure Trips (vacation, honeymoon, traveling with and without children)
* Immigrating to the United States
* Temporary Study or Employment
* Retiring to the United States on a seasonable basis
* Non-Emergency and Emergency Medical Treatment
* Lost employment opportunities to you (job offer or promotion contingent upon ability to travel to the United States) and to your employer

What are Grounds of Excludability?
(EXCERPT from the Immigration and Nationality Act, Sec 212 <8 U.S.C. 1182>.)

http://www.canadianlegal.org/travel_waivers.php

[tuvor]

3. Please post this in the Canada forum, too.

It would be appreciated.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=190

[iverglas]

4. now, we know why this is, right?

Canada doesn't give a shit about your 1960s pot-smoking, really, although it's true that that, or an impaired driving conviction, makes a person technically inadmissible to Canada. No one ever asked before, is all.

Why are we asking now?

Because the US demands it. The US demands that Canada demonstrate that we aren't the slackards we are believed to be in the US, admitting anyone and everyone who washes up on our shores.

We are, of course, merely the back entrance to the USofA, and as such we are required to pull up the drawbridge, or suffer the consequences. The consequences being more and more delay and hassle for people entering the US from Canada, i.e. interference in the cross-border flow of goods and people, i.e. a serious possibility of lost business for Canadian firms exporting to or doing business in the US.

If we don't follow US directions in this matter, the rumbling south of the border will start up again, and the whining of political voices ... like Hilary Clinton's ... will be heard, calling for more action to prevent all those phantom terrorists from creeping into the US via Canada, simply by pulling up to a US border station and waving a Tim Horton's coupon or something.

It's too bad, and really, not many of us are at all happy about it. People with 1960s pot-smoking convictions are often desirable tourists in the 21st century (viz. the couple in the article, now the occupants of a $3 million homestead). We'd love to have their dollars. But if we start letting people like them in, well dog knows we'll be letting in every Tom, Dick and Ali next, and soon there will be buildings crashing down all over the place south of the border.

Obviously, Cdn immigration officials are not going to say any of this to the press. And the Cdn government is not about to admit it to the Cdn public, obvious as it is from the way events have unfurled in the last 5 years.

(It isn't just Pat Buchanan:
http://www.cbc.ca/disclosure/archives/documents/030211_blamecanada_buchanan.html

Look, the perception in the United States, and you may not like it up north, is that Canada is very, very lax and loose when it comes to matter of national security, and internal security, the reason being that Canada has basically depended on the United States of America for years and years and years and years for its security. It does not make the same kinda defence effort the United States makes. It makes one of the weakest efforts in all of NATO. It’s a constant critic of the United States. And it prides itself on being more open than the Americans who are uptight. Now that’s fine as long as nothing goes wrong, but post 9-11’s the Americans are much more security conscious.

It really has been Hilary Clinton:
http://caledoninst.org/Publications/PDF/558320703.pdf

Senator Hilary Clinton is so eager to blame Canada that even when stories of terrorists ‘infiltrating’ the US from Canada turn out to be a hoax, she refuses to apologize, insisting that the deficiencies of the Canadian system are what made the story plausible.

She got that story straight from Bush's insiders, and she was sticking to it.)


By the way, David Lesperance is not an attorney. He is a member of the Ontario bar, and that makes him a barrister and solicitor, just like his website says. A lawyer, put simply. Ontario lawyers are not called attorneys, and at least back when I was one we were prohibited from calling ourselves attorneys. We don't call US lawyers solicitors when we write about them.

[leftchick]

14. thank you for clearing that up

and the more I hear and read about hillary the more I dislike her.

[saigon68]

60. Look at it this way LC

They can still swim over to work as undocumented persons employed by MEAT PACKERS

[Ignacio Upton]

5. So...can Canada refuse Bush because of his DUI?

n/t.

[rman]

23. Nah, the law doesn't apply to him

[noonwitch]

28. It would be hilarious if they did bar him for that reason, though.

I don't think it would happen, but if he were to cross from Maine to Quebec, for instance, and the french-speaking border guard didn't like anyone who speaks english, it could be ugly.

[KansDem]

32. You're assuming Bush can speak English?

I don't watch or listen to the man, but the few times I have, I'm appalled at his lack of command for the English language. Sometimes I have a tough time understanding him; one can only imagine the travails of those to whom English is a second language.

[Amonester]

41. herr bu$che speaks German...

(Apologies to our German friends for that "joke.")

[Tempest]

38. Yes, but they didn't

Canada open to president despite his DUI record

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20010211/ai_n13897374

[iverglas]

40. and if Bill had been convicted after not inhaling

he would have been admitted too. It really isn't personal. It's "head of state", as the article you linked said.

As it said, barring being a war criminal, no country vets another country's head of state for admissiblity.

[rodeodance]

6. a DWI???? they won't let you in? good grief!

[laundry_queen]

43. It works both ways you know.

I'm in Canada. Friends of my parents had planned an elaborate vacation in Hawaii, and were turned back at the airport because of the husbands previous drunk driving conviction in the 70's. An old high school friend of mine did something stupid aka shoplifting and was told to not even bother trying to get into the U.S. unless she applied for a pardon.
So before you all go get on your high horse, realize this works both ways.

[MGD]

7. Talk about fascism. I never had any real desire to go to Canada anyways.

Regardless, this is an alarming trend.

[iverglas]

11. talk about ignorance

If you actually care to know what you're talking about before doing it, feel free to read my earlier post in the thread.

Actually, of course, you've got it kinda right. It's the kinda fascism practised by US governments trying to control the world ...

[Name removed]

13. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cigsandcoffee]

30. Couldn't Canada just say no?

Why are they playing along with America's quest to rule the whole world?

[iverglas]

33. what's wrong with those fool Iraqis, anyhow?

Why didn't they just say "no"??

Maybe you can tell the class what percentage of Canada's exports go to the US. And muse about what the effects of just saying no might be.

It's certainly an option, and one that some advocate.

From 2005: http://thetyee.ca/Views/2005/01/04/TooMeekUsTrade/

The "promise " by the U.S. to end the ban on live cattle exports serves to remind us just how perverse U.S. trade law is and how corrupted is their democratic process. ...

In the lumber dispute, the U.S. continues to show contempt for the WTO and NAFTA, institutions it was largely responsible for creating. When you are an empire, it is very difficult to see why laws that apply to others should apply to you. Those who run the U.S., of course, have always maintained their nation doesn't have friends, just interests. ...

Even Paul Celucci , the American ambassador to Canada, seems to think Ottawa needs advice. He has actually suggested openly that only Canadian trade sanctions will get the attention of Congress on trade matters. Celucci was referring to the Byrd amendment, legislation which allows Washington to hand over to American corporations any cash that is gleaned from U.S. countervailing duties levied against foreign business competitors.

But dealing with the U.S. goes beyond this obnoxious law (the WTO has now authorized sanctions against the U.S. by eight countries affected). Canada has to play the cards it has to deal with trade harassment that occurs even after it wins rulings. And Canadians have to begin telling their government to develop a little courage to do so. ...

And much more at that link.

The Harper government recently "settled" the softwood lumber dispute by abandoning a huge chunk of what Canada was entitled to under NAFTA tribunal decision after NAFTA tribunal decision finding the US to be in violation of the rules. And all for an agreement that lasts about a year, after which there is no reason to expect that the US will not go right back to its evil tricks, if Canada has not "negotiated" some new concession from what the US signed its name to in NAFTA.

Why? Because thousands and thousands of workers in the forestry and lumber industry in Canada had lost their jobs, and plants had shut down, and more were on the verge of shutting down, and the future of whole communities was threatened. Just saying "no" wasn't really looking like a viable option to a lot of ordinary people.

I hope this has helped, but of course if you're thirsting for more, I'll be happy to point you.

[susanna]

59. Read laundry_queens post, above (#43).

This issue goes both ways. I feel free to comment on it, because I live about, oh, a mile or so from Canada. Only the Detroit River blocks my way.

The fact is, a lot of this stuff has existed for a loooooong time. The DUIs especially. I knew people ten years ago who were turned away at the border for the same infraction.

Then, 9/11 happened. Now? Every single ridiculous (and non-ridiculous) criminal charge WILL be investigated at the border. The bad ones (non-ridiculous),I have no trouble with. But it is actually sad, because they hit both. The fact is, the prior free flow of trade from once upon a time did wonders for both countries. Now it's pretty much toast. Except for big, giant multinationals. Yay! :sarcasm:

on edit: add post number for reference

[rodeodance]

9. you should apply for "a Minister's Approval of Rehabilitation" to wipe the record clear.

[rodeodance]

10. they hav a website here to find out which offences qualify

Rules for getting

into Canada

For more information on offenses that prohibit entry to Canada, go to the Canadian Consulate's Web site at geo.international.gc.ca/can-am/seattle/visas/inadmissible-en.asp.

[pokercat999]

17. Hmmmmm.

Persons who are inadmissible to Canada

Members of Inadmissible Classes include those who have been convicted of MINOR OFFENCES (including shoplifting, theft, assault, dangerous driving, unauthorized possession of a firearm, possession of illegal substances, etc.), or of INDICTABLE CRIMINAL OFFENCES (including assault with a deadly weapon, manslaughter, etc.). As well, those who have been convicted of DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED (DWI) are considered Members of an Inadmissible Class. Driving while under the influence of alcohol is regarded as an extremely serious offence in Canada.

Those who have received TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS (including parking/speeding tickets, etc.) and other minor violations (i.e. littering, etc.) most likely will NOT be prohibited from entering Canada. Similarly, those who have JUVENILE CONVICTIONS (convictions for crimes committed while under age 18) most likely will NOT be prohibited from entering Canada unless they could have been tried as an adult for their offences.

TEMPORARY RESIDENT PERMIT, APPROVALS OF REHABILITATION, AND PERMISSION TO RETURN TO CANADA:

Those who have been convicted of an offence IN CANADA who wish to return to Canada must first apply for a PARDON from the CLEMENCY AND PARDONS DIVISION OF THE NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD. A Pardon permanently erases the Canadian criminal record, and any consequences of inadmissibility resulting from it. Those unable to obtain a pardon may still apply for a TEMPORARY RESIDENT PERMIT. For more information on pardons, contact:

NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD,
Clemency and Pardons Division,
340 Laurier Avenue West,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0R1.

Those who have been convicted of an offence OUTSIDE CANADA, and have had 5 years elapse since the termination of the custodial portion (if any) of the sentence imposed (not the sentence served), may apply for a Minister's APPROVAL OF REHABILITATION. The Minister's Approval will permanently remove the inadmissibility caused by conviction.

If less than 5 years have elapsed, or if persons are only seeking entry to Canada for a single or limited period, then they may apply for a TEMPORARY RESIDENT PERMIT.

Those subject of a previous DEPORTATION ORDER FROM CANADA require PERMISSION TO RETURN TO CANADA before they can enter Canada. As well, those who have been subject of an EXCLUSION ORDER within the past 12 months require Permission to Return to Canada before they can re-enter Canada.

**NOTE: In general, applications for Temporary Resident Permits, Approvals of Rehabilitation and Authorization to Return to Canada take into consideration the nature of the offenses committed by the applicant, the number of offenses on the applicant's record, the length of time since the last offense, reports from parole or probation officers, the purpose for which entry into Canada is sought, and the applicant's standing in the community.

APPLYING FOR A TEMPORARY RESIDENT PERMIT, APPROVAL OF REHABILITATION, OR PERMISSION TO RETURN TO CANADA:

Persons may apply for a Temporary Resident Permit, Approval of Rehabilitation, or Permission to Return to Canada either in Canada or at one these CANADIAN VISA OFFICES IN THE UNITED STATES:

The Canadian Consulate General in BUFFALO, NY
The Canadian Consulate General in NEW YORK, NY
The Canadian Consulate General in DETROIT, MI
The Canadian Consulate General in LOS ANGELES, CA
The Canadian Consulate General in SEATTLE, WA
**NOTE: Be sure to visit the website of the Canadian Visa Office that will be processing your application to confirm hours of operation, processing times, documents/forms required, and other instructions. Application Forms may be obtained from the above offices.

DOCUMENTATION THAT MAY BE REQUIRED BY A CANADIAN VISA OFFICE TO PROCESS TEMPORARY RESIDENT PERMIT OR APPROVAL OF REHABILITATION APPLICATIONS:

POLICE CERTIFICATES from the jurisdictions where the applicant has lived since his/her 18 birthday (or for the last 10 years).

THE APPLICANT'S OWN STATEMENT OF CIRCUMSTANCES leading up to his/her conviction.

COURT RECORDS relating to the applicant's conviction(s).

REPORTS OF PROBATION OR PAROLE OFFICERS.

A COPY OF THE STATUTE under which the applicant was convicted.

THREE LETTERS FROM PERSONS OF STANDING IN THE COMMUNITY who know the applicant personally, and who can attest to the applicant's rehabilitation.

[mainegreen]

27. Cute. Their wording indicates they reserve the right to keep you out for traffic violations.

:rofl:

Well, gotta keep your options open. I guess if someone has 30 speeding tickets you might want to keep them off your roads!

Personally, I think most countries reserve the right to keep someone out simply because they feel like it. Unless you're a citizen of a country, you really have no right to enter it.

[iverglas]

31. "traffic violations"

Covers a bit of a multitude of sins.

Criminal law in Canada is under federal jurisdiction, and it is criminal offences that count here.

The provinces and territories are in charge of highway traffic, and they deal with speeding. Speeding really doesn't count.

But there are "traffic offences" in the Criminal Code:

249. Dangerous operation of motor vehicles, vessels and aircraft
252. Failure to stop at scene of accident
253. Operation while impaired
(hybrid offences, which I explained earlier)

Then there's causing bodily harm, or death, by criminal negligence ...

Personally, I think most countries reserve the right to keep someone out simply because they feel like it. Unless you're a citizen of a country, you really have no right to enter it.

True. Now, if only all this enforcement were really happening because *Canada* was exercising its sovereign right to admit or exclude whomever it wanted, and not because the US administration was twisting the Cdn govt's arm by threatening to interfere with the cross-border movement of people and goods, i.e. the trade that Canada's economy depends on ...

[Howardx]

36. i did that

they didnt refund the $160 they charged to let me in though.

[lligrd]

15. Bush's Way Of Sealing The Borders?

To keep us in. And a whole lot of Americans support the "American" wall. What fools!

[iverglas]

16. no, really, it isn't about you

Sometimes things aren't about USAmericans. This really is about Canada. And the US government trying to control Canada, and the whole rest of the world.

Do see my post #4.

From Dec 2001:
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/border/intro.html

Since the September 11th terrorist attacks, some in the United States have been pointing to Canada as North America's weakest security link. This, in turn, has led to calls by Americans for a continental security perimeter or “Fortress North America.” These calls have now turned into action. On October 29th, U.S. President George W. Bush ordered his officials to begin harmonizing U.S. customs and immigration policies with Canada and Mexico. On October 31st the United States Senate introduced the Enhanced Border Security Act, which requires the American government to explore the feasibility of setting up a North American National Security perimeter.

Like our southern neighbours, Canadians are concerned with domestic security after the events on September 11th, but our concept of Fortress North America involves more than just security. In establishing a common security perimeter, Canada would sacrifice some of its sovereignty, especially in regards to immigration and customs policies. Therefore we must decide whether we should trade sovereignty for security.

Sovereignty, of course, is the collective equivalent of individual freedom: the right to self-determination. A fundamental right of both an individual and a people.

And you folks all know what Ben Franklin had to say about people who trade essential freedom for a little temporary security.

The problem arises when the security isn't just little and temporary, it's your entire economy at stake, and if you go for sovereignty, you might end up with not much else when those borders are closed to your people and goods.

Of course, those of us with suspicious minds think that control over the flow of people and goods (for reasons having nothing to do with the US's own security) is what the US government is really after anyhow ...

[lligrd]

19. Guess I Have A suspicious Mind Then

Because I am certain that the Bush administration is after the control of everything. I am equally certain that they will fail in their attempt, as always.

[MaineDem]

21. This isn't new

They've been doing this for years.

I remember going up to Montreal about 10 years ago with a friend who had a DUI conviction in CT. He was sweating out the crossing but they let him in.

There was much talk before Bush went up that they wouldn't let him in. I think he needed special dispensation.

[no_hypocrisy]

22. Not only will this discourage tourism, but also procuring Canadian drugs

at Canadian prices. Shit, if the border patrol is equating minor violations and misdemeanors with felony convictions, they're going to keep more Americans on our side of the border than the ones that get through.

Unless. Unless you preemptively go to the court and get an expungement of records. Let's say you have a conviction for bouncing a check. Five years have passed. You go to court, requesting that conviction be erased from the records. Then you go to Canada. It only works for violations and misdemeanors, not big ticket items like kidnapping and rape.

[iverglas]

24. check the embassy link and info above

if the border patrol is equating minor violations and misdemeanors with felony convictions

It's Canadian law that governs entry to Canada, not US law.

The problem is that in Canada there are scads of offences that are defined as "hybrid" -- they can be prosecuted *either* by summary conviction (roughly equivalent to misdemeanour offences in the US) *or* by indictment (rougly equivalent to felonies). That is beneficial to people charged with offences, who usually get prosecuted the more lenient way. It's problematic for people convicted of equivalent foreign offences.

"Theft under" and pot possession are two examples where no one would be prosecuted by indictment in a month of Sundays, but they *could* be.

In determining what Canadian offence a foreign conviction is equivalent to, immigration law equates the foreign conviction to the indictable offence that someone *could have been* convicted of here. In actualy fact, virtually everyone prosecuted for hybrid offences is prosecuted by way of summary conviction -- for which the maximum penalty is usually 6 months, and which would not be a huge problem for immigration purposes.

I wanted to fight that law when I was in practice, but I found that it had been fought and the law had won. My client had got into an exchange of fisticuffs in Jamaica with a taxi passenger who refused to pay. The ring he was wearing cut the other guy's face. He was convicted of a wounding offence, which translated into a hybrid offence in Canada, and he was regarded as having been convicted of a big serious indictable offence for what was no more than a schoolyard shoving match in reality.

But really, it has nothing to do with Canada that such a lot of people in the US have criminal convictions. Also, up here, criminal lawyers are generally mindful of the border-crossing implications of criminal convictions and try to protect their clients from consequences of charges that make them inadmissible to the US; I doubt that 99% of US lawyers would even think of this.

A lot of concern is being expressed about impaired driving convictions. Well, we do treat it seriously, for our own purposes: to deter drunk driving and the reduce the harm that results. It's covered in the Criminal Code (criminal law is federal).

255. (1) Every one who commits an offence under section 253 or 254 is guilty of an indictable offence or an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable,

(a) whether the offence is prosecuted by indictment or punishable on summary conviction, to the following minimum punishment, namely,

(i) for a first offence, to a fine of not less than six hundred dollars,
(ii) for a second offence, to imprisonment for not less than fourteen days, and
(iii) for each subsequent offence, to imprisonment for not less than ninety days;

(b) where the offence is prosecuted by indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; and

(c) where the offence is punishable on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months.

And that's where there's no bodily harm or death caused. Drunk driving can be prosecuted by indictment -- as a "felony" -- where the circumstances warrant, in the opinion of the prosecution. It's a hybrid offence, which makes it indictable for immigration purposes. It may seem odd, and the US approach of excluding only people convicted of "moral turpitude" offences (and all drug offences) might seem wise.

Of course, it was never an issue until recently, because immigration border officials really didn't scour the lineups for people convicted of drunk driving, or pot possession. It's only happening now because we have been threatened with all sorts of trade problems if we don't fix that porous border of ours. People in the US believe the crap about the slackards running Canada and the haven for terrorists sitting on their northern border ... and they're the ones who end up suffering from the remedies applied to the non-existent problem.


Unless you preemptively go to the court and get an expungement of records.

Nope. A pardon granted in one country does not affect the other country's immigration rules. Here's how it works in the vice versa situation:

http://www.criminallawyers.ca/newslett/19-4/segal.htm (from 1998)

Canadian pardons are not recognized by the United States. Only pardons granted by the President of the United States or a Governor of a State are recognized by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Nor will obtaining an "expungement" eliminate criminal inadmissibility, unless the conviction is expunged according to recognized state expungement procedures. Thus a Canadian citizen, convicted and later pardoned of a crime of moral turpitude or a drug offence, is inadmissible. Moreover, if the Canadian is asked at a point of entry whether he or she has ever been convicted of a criminal offence, the only truthful answer is "Yes"; answering "No" on the theory that under Canadian pardon laws this answer is correct, means that the person will have lied to a U.S. Customs and Immigration Officer, which is in itself grounds for expedited removal and a five year bar from re-entry.

I imagine, anyhow, that it works the same way for people with US convictions entering Canada.

[no_hypocrisy]

25. Query: Is an expungement equated with a pardon?

Just asking.

A pardon is like a divorce. There is a record of a marriage and a dissolution. But you were known as once married.

An expungement is like an annulment. It never happened. How can authorities find records that have been deleted by the court?

Again, please give me more information as I don't know this area particularly concerning international treaties and law.

Thanks.

[iverglas]

26. uh oh

I may have hit my wall. ;)

The question only matters to the extent that authorities can find out about something if you don't tell them. If the question is "have you ever been convicted ...", under Cdn law, a pardon means that you can answer "no". Well, actually, it doesn't, what it is, is that an employer, for instance, may only ask have you ever been convicted of an offence for which you have not been granted a pardon?

The US border authorities can ask Canadians whatever they want.

In our case, records of people who are granted pardons are kept "separate and apart" from other records, but can still be used for some purposes.

The idea of expungement is a little odd to me. A pardon here can be revoked if there is a subsequent conviction, so I'm not familiar with the expungement concept.

What it kind of comes down to is a gamble. If they ask "have you ever ..." and you say "no", and somehow, however it is, they have info to the contrary, you're busted and you don't get in, then or maybe ever, or for a long time.

Do look at post 11, which summarizes the Cdn law:

Those who have been convicted of an offence OUTSIDE CANADA, and have had 5 years elapse since the termination of the custodial portion (if any) of the sentence imposed (not the sentence served), may apply for a Minister's APPROVAL OF REHABILITATION. The Minister's Approval will permanently remove the inadmissibility caused by conviction.

If less than 5 years have elapsed, or if persons are only seeking entry to Canada for a single or limited period, then they may apply for a TEMPORARY RESIDENT PERMIT.

For border-crossing purposes, it's definitely better to look to the law of the country you want to enter than to the law of your own country.


It's all a horrible mess between two countries that for a couple of centuries enjoyed about the free-est flow of people between them that the modern world has known. There's a War of 1812 museum in a town on the St Lawrence that has an exhibit about cross-border shopping during the war -- once the river froze over, people would just go back and forth and do business as usual. ;)

Almost all Canadian families who have been here a couple of generations, or even a couple of years, have "American cousins". My mother has a gaggle of them in Michigan and California. My Chinese-born neighbour kids have a grandmother in Chicago. Almost all my clients, when I practised immigration law, had immediate or extended family in the States. I have a cousin in <an undisclosed state> who was unable to visit his mother in Canada when she was dying with Alzheimer three years ago -- he's in his mid-50s and has lived illegally in the US for probably 20 years, has a wife and kids and a business there, but was convicted of possessing pot back in the early 70s in Canada (which is why he has never applied for residence), and is too afraid that if he returns to Canada he'll be denied entry back into the States to take the risk.

It's crap when it comes down to this. It isn't just tourism, it's families and a whole way of life and living as neighbours, for people in the border regions especially (which is of course most of the population of Canada!). And everybody suffers from the whole crappy deal that the Bush administration is imposing on all of us.

[ken solo]

29. Any first hand experience with this issue??

I kinda call BS on this one. DU has a large scope, surely someone here can share a troubled border crossing story…

The wife and I travel to Canada several times a year through the Buffalo/Niagara/Lewiston corridor (not yet in ‘07, too cold!). I have a (Ahem) 10 year old 3rd degree misdemeanor possession charge. Never have I even once had trouble getting into Canada. I can hardly recall ever even having to show ID. In fact, there is much more scrutiny trying to get back in the US from our own border guards, always have to show ID.

I’d love to hear some personal testimonials on this issue…

-Ken

[PassingFair]

34. Just came back to the U.S. via the Windsor Tunnel two weeks ago...

My husband, my daughter and I.

No priors. For the FIRST TIME EVER, our drivers licenses were taken and
obviously "run" for information.

It took only about 5 minutes.

I have had my car searched in the past (I've lived in Detroit my whole life
and gone to Canada COUNTLESS times).

I have NEVER had them check for warrants/past violation before.

Just sayin....

On edit: We were NOT subjected to any screening going INTO Canada.
This was coming back into the U.S.

[iverglas]

35. moi?

I'm not much interested in crossing the border these days. And I've been out of immigration practice for 15 years.

Personal experience really isn't relevant to the rules. And the rules are new and getting newer.

In fact, there is much more scrutiny trying to get back in the US from our own border guards, always have to show ID.

Uh, yeah, that's the second reason why Canada is cracking down (the first being that we don't want to keep getting called the slackers on the block).

If we admit a US citizen or resident without proper proof of citizenship or residence, the US just might not take him/her back. And just might have some questions about how/why s/he got admitted to Canada in the first place, of course.


Call BS all you want. The fact that this isn't headline news in the US really means nothing.

Canadians, proportionately, travel to the US much more than vice versa. It's cold here in the winter, and we're just travelling fools. The rush on our passport office, and the ever-changing whims of the US govt as to whether and when we will have to present passports to enter the US, and the effect that the whole nasty business is having on business in Canada, is on the front page regularly here.

[sinkingfeeling]

39. Yes, I have or at least think I have. It was in 1998.

My sister, BIL, son (28 at the time) and I had been in Seattle and had booked passage on the ferry to Victoria, BC. When we arrived, my son and I were pulled from the line after handing over our US passports. I was not allowed to notify my sister and brother-in-law in a different line that anything was happening.

We were taken to a different room and they asked to see our US drivers' licenses. I thought it was related to some of the visa stamps in our passports from Latin American countries and the fact that my son's appearance at the time was awful. He had a beard and was grubby and might have been mistaken for a drug runner or something.

In the end, I think it was because Mike's drivers' license was expired. How they knew that up front by looking at the passport, I don't know.

Anyway, after about an hour, we were let in. As soon as I saw my sister, I broke into tears and said I wanted to go back to the USA. They had been looking all over for us and were angry because we had pre-arranged transportation to the hotel, which we missed. We had to get a cab and the cab driver said that Canada had gotten tired of all the hassles on the US side of their people. I cried all the way into town and swore I wasn't going to spend a dime in Canada. It ruined our vacation. It took me two days to finally get over it and smile again.

Since then, I have made about 3 other trips to Canada with no problems. But I also didn't have my son with me! Had a very nice time in Nova Scotia last September.

Canada, you have the right to do whatever you want, but you hurt my feelings.

[Oreegone]

53. Oh it is real alright

I work for a travel company and we have had several people turned around and sent home flying into Canada, one was for a DWI from 30 years ago.

[Gormy Cuss]

55. Expunged convictions shouldn't be included, but GIGO rules in data mining..

Technically, if there is proof of expungement there is no conviction on record but I'd hate to be the one to test this at the border.

Expungements even back in the day of mostly paper records weren't always deleted. They were marked as expunged and excluded from external report requests. I would guess that there is a hazard these days of an agency using historic data rather than current data, or that a simple key entry error could prevent a full expungement from updated files. An expunged record could hang around like yesterday's news.

[Tempest]

37. Remember when Canada suspended the law to let Bush in?

According to the law Bush also wasn't able to legally enter Canada, but the government lifted the law for him.

Someone in the Canadian press needs to point this out.

[shrike]

42. I grew up in Detroit

And it was back and forth between Windsor and Detroit all the time.

Spent many summers on the canadian side of Lake Huron. Still zillions of cousins over in Ontario whom I've never met, because Grandpa emigrated from Ontario around the time of the Great Depression. (Guess that makes me a second generation American.)

All of this is hard for me to imagine, even though I know it's going on, of course. Most Michiganders I knew didn't regard Canada as a "foreign country," although of course it was. One fellow I knew said that to him, visiting the American South was like traveling in a foreign country.

[laundry_queen]

44. jeebus people.

Y'all act like this is something only Canada does. Read my post #43. Canadians get turned back at the U.S. border too.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

46. Fine, But I Expect Better From Canada

The U.S. is undoubtedly a frightened, liberty-less, facist country right now, but the Canadians are looked upon as being above stooping to our standards.

Becoming more like the U.S. is not something Canada should be proud of. Certainly not in this instance of taking away rights and freedoms and liberty.

[iverglas]

47. what?

Becoming more like the U.S. is not something Canada should be proud of. Certainly not in this instance of taking away rights and freedoms and liberty.

What rights and freedoms and liberty do you imagine that US citizens and residents have that Canada is taking away??

The nationals of any nation have no right, freedom or liberty to enter another nation unless it is expressly granted by that other nation. Not under any laws of the international community pretty much since there was such an idea.

The U.S. is undoubtedly a frightened, liberty-less, facist country right now, but the Canadians are looked upon as being above stooping to our standards.

If you don't want us "stooping" to your standards, you could try raising yours.

It's hard to stay upright when one has a millstone around one's neck, and that's pretty much what the US is to Canada in this respect.

I don't understand what people don't understand. (You might start by reading my other posts in this thread.)

The US government uses its economic and military weight to advance its own interests at the expense of others', and thus to crush dissent in the international community. A lot of other nations can't afford to cut the cord on the millstone. It's also an anchor.

A majority of Canada's trade is with the US. This has worked relatively well over the decades, since we speak the same language, get along reasonably well, have similar lifestyles, and each have things the other wants and is willing and able to pay a reasonable price for, while selling at reasonable prices. We kinda thought this worked.

In the last few years, we have been bullied and lied to and pushed around in ways that no distant relation, let alone friend and neighbour, would ever do to its cousin or drinking buddy. Whole towns in several parts of Canada were going down the toilet because of the illegal duties the US was charging on softwood lumber exports from Canada -- money that was going straight into the pockets of big corporations in the US, while US consumers paid higher prices for housing and such -- and the mills were shutting down. This was despite the fact that tribunal after tribunal had found that the US was acting in violation of the trade agreement it signed and had to turn billions of dollars back over to Canada. It just said no. It said it wanted to renegotiate. Tried that with the place you bought your car from lately? Would you do it to your neighbour if you bought a car from him/her? So because the people whose families depended on the forestry and lumber industry saw no option other than homelessness and welfare, Canada agreed to take a whole lot less money than it was owed, and to "negotiate" again in a few short months' time.

Yes, we have a government at present that didn't have an interest in trying to hold the US's feet to the fire. But what do you really imagine we can do? Stop the flow of natural gas? A Canadian government is really going to do that to the USofA? All bets would be off at that point, methinks.

Then there was that whole bogus mad cow thing. Who profited from that? Guesses? Who lost? Canadian farmers, and thus Canada as a whole, and US consumers. Quelle surprise.

The US is moving on a number of fronts to establish hegemony over North America. The "security perimiter" is one aspect. It requires Canada to abdicate elements of our sovereignty and change how we do various rather fundamental things to suit Washington.

Do you know that Canadian airlines that fly from Point A to Point B *in Canada* but, in the normal course of flight, overfly US territory, may not carry passengers -- Canadian passengers, passengers that the Canadian government has no beef wtih -- who are on the *US* no-fly list ... or ... well, I can't find exactly what, but obviously it's a big enough threat for Cdn airlines to have little option but to comply by submitting passenger lists for checking against a *US* list that we don't know who's on.

And because of how the *US* government is choosing to pursue its alleged security interests, *we* are having to change our historical approach to immigration and borders. Or else. Again, yes, this suits the present, in all likelihood transient government pretty well, but it is hardly in *our* interests.

Damn. Blame the victim.

There are reasons we don't like who's in Washington. We: you and us. This kind of stuff is one of them. Me, personally, I would love to give Bush and the boys a great big red and white finger and tell them they can build houses out of sand 'cause they aren't getting our softwood lumber, and they can heat their houses with cow dung 'cause they aren't getting our natural gas, and they can recall the latest in the long line of nasty ambassadors 'cause he isn't welcome anymore.

And then I'd be pretty soon out of a job, and eating softwood lumber and wishing I could still afford to live in the place that I can heat real cheap now ...

We hate them because they're vicious and they exploit and oppress. Their *ability* to do that doesn't go away just because somebody gives them the finger.

[CreekDog]

48. Maybe it is tit-for-tat

Crossing the border at Glacier Nat'l Park in 2003, (middle of nowhere) I was told I couldn't bring poultry into Canada (and you couldn't bring beef into the US). I had chicken in cans and chicken soup for camping.

Anyway...I said fine, I'll just throw it away and go to Canada, sans poultry, but then the mountie said, "You can't throw that away here, this is Canada."

"Okay, fine, I'll just turn around and throw it away in the USA."

Then the RCMP said that if I drive up to Canada's crossing then immediately turn around head back to the USA to throw something away, the USA will inspect my car something fierce and I'll have to unload it and wait around probably while they do.

"So, what do I do?"

On his advice, I walked from away from my car with a bag full of canned goods down the highway to the other side of the border (over a 1/4 mile) to the other to discard my cans.

At the US border crossing, I explained my plight, that I was going to Canada and couldn't bring this food, asked if I could throw the food away there in the US and the Customs Agent said,

"Don't you want to eat it?"

That last question should demonstrate that when it's Canada v. the USA, I still think the Canadians are sharper and more sensible than we are. Not perfect, mind you.

So, even if you're record is clean, be careful of those canned goods, don't say "eh" to the RCMP and don't make fun of Anne Murray. ;)

[iverglas]

50. hey, we got doozies too

The smarmy jerk with the spiffy Manuel Ortega sunglasses sunning himself in the customs booth at I forget which crossing ... I always took *my* sunglasses off when I pulled up to customs, but this time I couldn't roll my window all the way down, because the old Toyota van had just about given up the ghost and it might not go up one more time. He demanded that I do (I would have been happy to pull over and get out, so I should've just said no) ... and that was the last time that window went up, i.e. it didn't.

Then there was the time I decided to drive on the US side of the St. Lawrence for a while just for the hell of it. Crossed over, had lunch, crossed back in time to meet my little bro for a movie. I thought. One booth open, line of trucks a mile long. An hour later, it's my turn. Replied to questions by saying I'd crossed over three hours before, I'd been in the line for an hour of that time, and I'd had lunch. Old Suzuki; no trunk; what you see is what you get. What there was to see was a briefcase and a jacket. When I persisted in answering all questions -- buy anything? bringing anything back? -- with "no, I had lunch", I got the wrong coloured ticket and got sent over to wait some more. The guy there walked the ten paces around the car, looked in the windows, asked me the same questions, I said "no, I had lunch", he looked puzzled and sent me away.

It's like every other authority in life, though: if you ain't doing nothing wrong, they can't do nothing to you. When you're coming into your own country, anyhow. So I got tired of being asked every time I hit customs what the purpose of my trip had been, and I decided next time I would say "none of your business" because that's exactly what it is. I have a constitutional right to leave and re-enter Canada, and the purpose of my trip could have been the most horrible thing you can imagine, and I can still come back in. Yup, they can hassle me, but I don't care. Actually, I'd settled on the Miss Manners response: "and why do you ask?" I mentioned it to an immigration border officer buddy of mine (I was in the biz), and he said d'you know, they've just put out a policy that they're not to ask that anymore. So coming back from Chicago the next new year's eve ... I sit on the bridge for half an hour ... and the woman asks me what the purpose of my trip was. Why do you ask? I ask sweetly. Well, I might have got christmas presents. If you want to know whether I got christmas presents, ask me. She did. Yup, that kitchy plastic mirror and candleholder set in the back seat that my friend got at a garage sale. Off I went.

Always had the opposite trouble when actually trying to declare. Coming back from Cuba a few times -- I'd load up on records (yes, that was the old days). Nobody else declared anything but a bottle of rum and a carton of cigarettes. There was me, declaring my limit. They couldn't figure out how I'd managed to buy things. And a shopping trip to Maine ... my pal had hit the outlet stores, and I'd found out while we were there that I'd landed a contract so I'd gone artsy crafsty crazy. Poor guy at customs spent a while getting us the best rates on it all, and looking like he really wished we'd just said "no". But I was an immigration lawyer, and she worked for the Revenue department ...

The last time was 3 years ago. Had to go to Florida to get all my dad's stuff from his trailer after he had become ill and flown home, and died shortly after. A minivan full of ... junk. The customs officer kept wanting something he could write on the form, there being no duty payable anyhow, and all I could think of was "junk". Tools and nails and papers and clothing and dishes and bedding ... just like anybody having to cross a border with my junk if I'd died on the wrong side would be saying. We settled on "books".

Going the other way ... there was the time I pulled up to US customs and realized as I sat in line I had left every shred of ID, credit cards, birth cert, driver's licence ... ownership and insurance ... in a jacket pocket hanging on my office chair. Figured I'd front it out. The random question that day was "what kind of work do you do?" I'm an immigration lawyer. He said something I didn't understand, went HAHAHAHAHHA, so I went HAHAHAHAHA, and he waved me through. I think he must have been asking whether I was drumming up business and got his laugh for the day. ;)

Anyhow, really, a lot of the experience is determined by who you run into. Arrogant self-important pretty boys in a summer job where they get to hassle people, or regular folks doing a job. Not that those last ones are likely the ones getting the jobs these days.

Oh, hey. You'll like this one.

http://www.histori.ca/minutes/minute.do?id=10187 (short video will start)

"Alaska/Canada Boundary 1898 ... Superintendent Sam Steele of the North West Mounted Police was no stranger to action. ..."

[depakid]

54. "'cause they aren't getting our natural gas"

Actually NAFTA has something to say about that....

Curious as to how it'll will play out in the coming decade.

Americans do so want that natural gas... and Albertans do so want to exploit their tar sands.

[Megahurtz]

49. Hasn't This Already Been Going On for Awhile?

When I was in Canada, two friends of mine (one Australian, one Candian)
had recently married.
The Aussie applied for residency in Canada, and had some minor Pot charges on record in Australia that already had been dealt with. Because of that, Canada would not let him immigrate.
So they moved to Australia.

I don't think that this is anything new.

[iverglas]

51. the Aussie shoulda got a lawyer

I would never have lost a client that way.

My favourite was the guy with a drug record in India ... I forget where he was from, the US I think. The sponsoring spouse was Canadian, owned a fancy restaurant. He was one broken-down old hippy. He had the drug charge in India because he'd overstayed his visa and didn't have the money or motivation to leave, so somebody advised him to get himself arrested with some drugs and then they wouldn't let him leave ...

Anyhow, I left practice before the whole thing got resolved, but as far as I could tell he was here to stay. Five years on non-permanent status, sure. Same for your friend if they'd succeeded. But denied? Hmm. "Some" minor pot charges ...?

[Megahurtz]

52. Yeah, I don't think he ever got a Lawyer,

but I know he was at it for awhile.
Oh well, maybe the Wife wanted to see Australia!

[MaineDem]

58. I don't think it's new either

It's very common to pop over the border from Maine. I know people who can't make the trip, though, because of various "infractions." This has been going on for years.

[appleannie1]

56. And when this begins to effect

the tourism business? Sometimes losing money tends to make people change their minds about things. I mean, all those casino owners, high end fishing and hunting lodges, ski resort owners etc. can make a mighty big noise.

[Pavulon]

57. Not my Experience

I have a few bullshit misdemeanors from my mis spent youth. I was in canada 6 weeks ago in business. Not a hitch. odd..