Going to Canada? Check your past.

[DeadPoolX 9]

There was a time not long ago when a trip across the border from the United States to Canada was accomplished with a wink and a wave of a driver's license. Those days are over.

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.''

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.

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.

They are shocked to hear that the sins of their youth might keep them out of Canada. But what they don't know is that this is just the beginning. Soon other nations will be able to look into your past when you want to travel there.

"It's completely ridiculous,'' said Chris Cannon, an attorney representing the East Bay couple, who asked that their names not be used because they don't want their kids to know about the pot rap. "It's a disaster. I mean, who didn't smoke pot in the '70s?''

We're about to find out. And don't think you are in the clear if you never inhaled. Ever get nabbed for a DUI? How about shoplifting? Turn around. You aren't getting in.

"From the time that you turn 18, everything is in the system,'' says Lucy Perillo, whose Canada Border Crossing Service in Winnipeg, Manitoba, helps Americans get into the country.

Canadian attorney David Lesperance, an expert on customs and immigration, says he had a client who was involved in a fraternity prank 20 years ago. He was on a scavenger hunt, and the assignment was to steal something from a Piggly Wiggly supermarket. He got caught, paid a small fine and was ordered to sweep the police station parking lot.

He thought it was all forgotten. And it was, until he tried to cross the border.

The official word from the Canadian Border Services Agency is that this is nothing more than business as usual. Spokesman Derek Mellon gets a little huffy when asked why the border has become so strict.

"I think it is important to understand that you are entering another country,'' Mellon says. "You are not crossing the street.''

OK, but something changed here, didn't it?

"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.' ''

A prior record has always made it difficult to cross the border. What you probably didn't know was that, as the Canadian Consulate's Web site says, "Driving while under the influence of alcohol is regarded as an extremely serious offense in Canada.''

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.

"They can call up anything that your state trooper in Iowa can,'' Lesperance says. "As Canadians and Americans have begun cooperating, all those indiscretions from the '60s are going to come back and haunt us.''

Now, there's a scary thought. But the irony of the East Bay couple's situation is inescapable. Since their rowdy days in the '70s, they have created and sold a publishing company, purchased extensive real estate holdings and own a $3 million getaway home in Lake Tahoe.

"We've done pretty well since those days,'' she says. "But what I wonder is how many other people might be affected.''

The Canadian Border Services Agency says its statistics don't show an increase in the number of travelers turned back. But Cannon says that's because the "data mining'' has just begun to pick up momentum.

"It is too new to say,'' he says. "Put it this way. I am one lawyer in San Francisco, and I've had four of these cases in the last two years, two since January. And remember, a lot of people don't want to talk about it (because of embarrassment).''

Asked if there were more cases, attorney Lesperance was emphatic.

"Oh, yeah,'' he says. "Just the number of calls I get has gone up. If we factor in the greater ability to discover these cases, it is just mathematically logical that we are going to see more.''

The lesson, the attorneys say, is that if you must travel to Canada, you should apply for "a Minister's Approval of Rehabilitation" to wipe the record clear.

Oh, and by the way, if you don't need to travel to Canada, don't think you won't need to clear your record. Lesperance says it is just a matter of time before agreements are signed with governments in destinations like Japan, Indonesia and Europe.

"This,'' Lesperance says, "is just the edge of the wedge.''

Who would have thought a single, crazy night in college would follow you around the world?

Original Source

[Ban Hammer 12,887]

Who would have thought a single, crazy night in college would follow you around the world?

anyone with just a bit of foresight?

[DeadPoolX 9]

Who would have thought a single, crazy night in college would follow you around the world?

anyone with just a bit of foresight?

Well, possibly, but I think it's a little much to keep someone out of the country for something they did several decades ago. If it's a recent offense, then sure, it makes sense; but if as it was said in the article, "who didn't smoke pot in the 70's?" I suppose Canada (and other countries) will let people in who did marijuana, but just didn't get caught. That doesn't seem any better to me.

Now DUI/DWI I can see being a bit more forceful about. That can be pretty serious. However, you can still apply for a "Minister's Approval of Rehabilitation" so I guess all is not lost, so long as it was a one-time situation.

[Ban Hammer 12,887]

Who would have thought a single, crazy night in college would follow you around the world?

anyone with just a bit of foresight?

Well, possibly, but I think it's a little much to keep someone out of the country for something they did several decades ago. If it's a recent offense, then sure, it makes sense; but if as it was said in the article, "who didn't smoke pot in the 70's?" I suppose Canada (and other countries) will let people in who did marijuana, but just didn't get caught. That doesn't seem any better to me.

Now DUI/DWI I can see being a bit more forceful about. That can be pretty serious. However, you can still apply for a "Minister's Approval of Rehabilitation" so I guess all is not lost, so long as it was a one-time situation.

and no matter how you want to slice it, it's really canada's call as to who they let in or not, isn't it?

[akdiver 3]

And the point of this drivel is - what? That criminals should be allowed to travel wherever they damned well please just because they're Americans?

If you don't want to be deemed undesirable, then do not go out and commit crimes.

Cheers!

AKDiver

[DeadPoolX 9]

Who would have thought a single, crazy night in college would follow you around the world?

anyone with just a bit of foresight?

Well, possibly, but I think it's a little much to keep someone out of the country for something they did several decades ago. If it's a recent offense, then sure, it makes sense; but if as it was said in the article, "who didn't smoke pot in the 70's?" I suppose Canada (and other countries) will let people in who did marijuana, but just didn't get caught. That doesn't seem any better to me.

Now DUI/DWI I can see being a bit more forceful about. That can be pretty serious. However, you can still apply for a "Minister's Approval of Rehabilitation" so I guess all is not lost, so long as it was a one-time situation.

and no matter how you want to slice it, it's really canada's call as to who they let in or not, isn't it?

Of course it is. Just like it's up to the U.S. who comes in and who doesn't. I just still think that if you committed a very minor offense 30 years ago or so, and haven't done anything since, it's a bit unfair to be barred from entering a foreign nation. That's all.

And the point of this drivel is - what? That criminals should be allowed to travel wherever they damned well please just because they're Americans?

If you don't want to be deemed undesirable, then do not go out and commit crimes.

Cheers!

AKDiver

These weren't people going out and committing serious crimes. No one murdered or assaulted or raped or sexually abused anyone. As I said before, I can see Canada being a bit strict on the whole DUI/DWI thing, but as far as minor offenses (like smoking marijuana in the 1970's) go, I think that's being overly stringent.

Of course, as Charles pointed out, it doesn't really matter what I think. It's all up to Canada (and whatever other countries who do this) to make their decision. I just hope the speeding ticket I got back in high school doesn't count as an offense that could keep me out of another country, specifically Canada. I'm pretty sure I was under 18 at the time, so it hopefully shouldn't matter to them -- if speeding tickets do count as an offense that could keep someone out of the country, that is.

[beameup 0]

After my last experience, I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in going to Canada. They can just keep that "Great White (frozen) North" to themselves. I was with my wife and mother-in-law when we arrived in Victoria and they literally emptied the entire contents of my pick-up camper right there in the asphalt driveway/ramp. They then reloaded it (threw everything back inside) and then the supervisor motioned for them to keep looking. So they emptied the entire contents of the pick-up/camper shell back out onto the asphalt ramp a second time. And again threw everything back inside. By this time I was ready to just sit there until the next ferry going back to Washington. I still have no idea what they were looking for but suspect guns or "dog spray" (pepper spray) since that is the only questions we were asked. We were polite and well dressed and the vehicle was new. Perhaps it was because my wife and mother-in-law were Filipino - maybe they don't like "mixed marriages" with Asians in Canada, or maybe they just don't like Americans.

I advise anyone to completely bypass Canada. If they want to go to Alaska, best to go direct by ferry.

[misa 2]

Perhaps it was because my wife and mother-in-law were Filipino - maybe they don't like "mixed marriages" with Asians in Canada, or maybe they just don't like Americans.

I seriously doubt it was the "mixed marriage" thing. Maybe if you were crossing in the rural prairies, but not Victoria.

[misa 2]

These weren't people going out and committing serious crimes. No one murdered or assaulted or raped or sexually abused anyone. As I said before, I can see Canada being a bit strict on the whole DUI/DWI thing, but as far as minor offenses (like smoking marijuana in the 1970's) go, I think that's being overly stringent.

Doesn't the US have the same policy regarding prior drug charges?

[Saddle Bronc 124]

... no matter how you want to slice it, it's really canada's call as to who they let in or not, isn't it?

Exactly: it is up to a nation which foreigners (who don't hold its citizenship) it permits in. (as Loudmouth-Louie Farakhan found out when he argued that he had "an intrinsic right to address his followers in UK"--which did not impress Jack Straw too favourably; he would have had such intrinsic right had he been born or naturalised to UK).

However, no nation can reasonably (some, such as Pakistan--in the case of physicist Abdus Salam--have done so UNREASONABLY) deny entry to one of its own citizens

[riblet 0]

U.S. Immigration does the exact same thing, I've heard of people with old minor drug charges not being allowed into the U.S. - and this was 10 or 15 years ago. I guess it was a slow news day

[Sharon 1]

After my last experience, I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in going to Canada. They can just keep that "Great White (frozen) North" to themselves. I was with my wife and mother-in-law when we arrived in Victoria and they literally emptied the entire contents of my pick-up camper right there in the asphalt driveway/ramp. They then reloaded it (threw everything back inside) and then the supervisor motioned for them to keep looking. So they emptied the entire contents of the pick-up/camper shell back out onto the asphalt ramp a second time. And again threw everything back inside. By this time I was ready to just sit there until the next ferry going back to Washington. I still have no idea what they were looking for but suspect guns or "dog spray" (pepper spray) since that is the only questions we were asked. We were polite and well dressed and the vehicle was new. Perhaps it was because my wife and mother-in-law were Filipino - maybe they don't like "mixed marriages" with Asians in Canada, or maybe they just don't like Americans.

I advise anyone to completely bypass Canada. If they want to go to Alaska, best to go direct by ferry.

Canada is the second largest country in the world. And a beautiful one at that.

While I can definitely understand how your bad experience would leave a bad taste in your mouth, do you really think that one experience stands for what ALL of Canada is like?

P.S. Canada is only (frozen) about 4 - 5 months every year, not all the time...lol (not even all of Canada either)

Edited February 24, 2007 by Sharon

[Kathryn41 3,205]

United States does the same - individuals convicted of a felony are considered inadmissible. Driving impaired is considered a criminal offense in Canada, whether it is committed inside Canada or in a foreign country: (sorry about the emoticons - the transfer copy and paste doesn't transfer correctly for certain numbers)

DUI, DWI & Criminal Legislation in Ontario

Immigration Act of Canada , section: 36 (1) to (3)

Immigration/Exclusion of Visitors, Inadmissibility to Canada for Criminal Conviction

36. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality for

(a) having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years, or of an offence under an Act of Parliament for which a term of imprisonment of more than six months has been imposed;

(B) having been convicted of an offence outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years; or

© committing an act outside Canada that is an offence in the place where it was committed and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years.

[Criminality including DUI]

(2) A foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of criminality for

(a) having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by way of indictment, or of two offences under any Act of Parliament not arising out of a single occurrence;

(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;

© committing an act outside Canada that is an offence in the place where it was committed and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament; or

(d) committing, on entering Canada, an offence under an Act of Parliament prescribed by regulations.

[Exceptions and Presumptions]

(3) The following provisions govern subsections (1) and (2):

(a) an offence that may be prosecuted either summarily or by way of indictment is deemed to be an indictable offence, even if it has been prosecuted summarily;

(B) inadmissibility under subsections (1) and (2) may not be based on a conviction in respect of which a pardon has been granted and has not ceased to have effect or been revoked under the Criminal Records Act, or in respect of which there has been a final determination of an acquittal;

© the matters referred to in paragraphs (1)(B) and © and (2)(B) and © do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of a permanent resident or foreign national who, after the prescribed period, satisfies the Minister that they have been rehabilitated or who is a member of a prescribed class that is deemed to have been rehabilitated;

(d) a determination of whether a permanent resident has committed an act described in paragraph (1)© must be based on a balance of probabilities; and

(e) inadmissibility under subsections (1) and (2) may not be based on an offence designated as a contravention under the Contraventions Act or an offence under the Young Offenders Act.

Comments : Canada's new Immigration Act excludes persons under sub-section (2) who have a criminal conviction for an offence that would constitute an indictable offence if committed in Canada. Impaired driving, over 80, and refusal are all indictable offences within the meaning of this section. Exclusion also applies to "committing an act outside Canada that is an offence in the place where it was committed and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament". The latter includes pending DUI's. However if there has been a pardon or a final acquittal see the (3) (b)exception.

Edited February 24, 2007 by Kathryn41

[beameup 0]

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.

Now that's a joke.

"B.C. bud" is famous in the U.S. being smuggled in backpacks along remote regions of the Canada/U.S. border. It seems Canadians have a real "green thumb" when it comes to growing marijuana - INDOORS. Entire suburban homes have been turned into greenhouses for growing the "bud" and illegal taps are made into the main electrical grid to power the indoor floodlights. That combined with genetically engineered marijuana produces the most POTENT POT known.

Simple possession by a Canadian is considered a misdemeanor and growers get a slap-on-the-wrist. Vancoover, B.C. is famous for people smoking dope on the public streets and "head shops" are plentiful.

Lets face it folks, Americans are not welcome in Canada.

My last trip was in 1997 and I will never return.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Perhaps its reciprocity.

Was Brazil that objected to the US fingerprinting and photographing non-immigrant visitors, so they imposed the exact same rule on travelling US citizens.