Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Years ago an RCMP officer told me that they asked border guards sometimes to do things that the RCMP couldn't legally do as the border guards had almost unlimited power. So you want to be nice to them, that's for sure.
I always am, even when they seem very strict and dour.
The thing is, they're human. On both sides of the border ( and overseas as well ) I've encountered joking ones, serious don't mess with me types, and bored ones.
The thing for me that IS changing is more and more of them seem so young. Like cops. Getting older I guess
On a return crossing into Canada a few years ago I encountered how youth can affect the questioning.
I had driven from California, a drive I've done many times over the years as have millions of people. I pulled up to the customs window to see a very young guard...he may have been 21 or so.
When I answered where I had been, he seemed perplexed. " You drove all the way from California ? "
It kind of stunned me, even myself at that age had driven to LA, but I guess he may have come from a different part of Canada???
Anyway the answer I gave was basically advice and routes and places he should see , and that he should do the drive, it's a nice one. He seemed eager to do it. LOL
I'm sure he thought of me every time a car from California came through...and there would be lots in his career.
The US and Canada are both extremely strict about criminal records. In the age of computers and digital records your past will hang around your neck for life. Yes that minor in possession charge from 20 years ago, smoking marijuana in 1985 etc. will prevent you from getting into either Canada or the US. Is this right or fair? Probably not but it is part of the overly leagalistic and unforgiving age we live in. I suppose it’s a warning to us all to make sure we teach our children the consequences of youthful indiscretions and how thier lives will be permanently damaged by seemingly insignificant offenses. This goes far beyond border crossings, it affects ones ability to get a job, volunteering in your child’s school or even finding a mate. Background checks are done every where now.
The US and Canada are both extremely strict about criminal records. In the age of computers and digital records your past will hang around your neck for life. Yes that minor in possession charge from 20 years ago, smoking marijuana in 1985 etc. will prevent you from getting into either Canada or the US. Is this right or fair? Probably not but it is part of the overly leagalistic and unforgiving age we live in. I suppose it’s a warning to us all to make sure we teach our children the consequences of youthful indiscretions and how thier lives will be permanently damaged by seemingly insignificant offenses. This goes far beyond border crossings, it affects ones ability to get a job, volunteering in your child’s school or even finding a mate. Background checks are done every where now.
Quite agreed and everyone ought to be grateful that the U.S. and Canada does not ban people for words or verbal action. Imagine getting barred forever from Canada for insulting Prime Minister Trudeau in social media. Something like that could very well happen in authoritarian countries in other parts of the world.
Why should arrests without convictions be ground to deny admission at the border?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
The situation becomes even worse if you have had a conviction for DUI, which is considered a "felony" conviction in Canada while a misdemeanor down south. If you have this but answer "no" to the "any arrests or convictions" question YOU'VE LIED, unwittingly perhaps, but in the eyes of the agent you're one strike down and that's all some of them will tolerate.
It's not just a Canadian thing but works the same both sides.
I can understand denials for convictions, but why should arrests without convictions be ground to deny admission at the border? The fundamental principal of US jurisprudence, which I believe also applies to Canadian jurisprudence since both country's legal systems are based on British common law, is that one is innocent until proven guilty.
One can be arrested for almost anything, such as due to a mistaken identity or false accusation. A police officer could pull over a driver who is driving erratically or making a wrong maneuver, and charge that person with a DUI, but if it could be proven that the person was not illegally intoxicated, then the charges will be dropped or changed to a lesser civil charge. In these cases, the arrested person has committed no crime.
Therefore, if one is arrested but not convicted, then that means that they should have no criminal record, and should be allowed free passage across the border.
I can understand denials for convictions, but why should arrests without convictions be ground to deny admission at the border? The fundamental principal of US jurisprudence, which I believe also applies to Canadian jurisprudence since both country's legal systems are based on British common law, is that one is innocent until proven guilty.
One can be arrested for almost anything, such as due to a mistaken identity or false accusation. A police officer could pull over a driver who is driving erratically or making a wrong maneuver, and charge that person with a DUI, but if it could be proven that the person was not illegally intoxicated, then the charges will be dropped or changed to a lesser civil charge. In these cases, the arrested person has committed no crime.
Therefore, if one is arrested but not convicted, then that means that they should have no criminal record, and should be allowed free passage across the border.
Generally speaking, you will. The test is not whether or not you've been arrested. The test is if you're deceitful about information that the officer already knows.
If you're proven a liar, then they have the discretion to deny you entry.
I can understand denials for convictions, but why should arrests without convictions be ground to deny admission at the border? The fundamental principal of US jurisprudence, which I believe also applies to Canadian jurisprudence since both country's legal systems are based on British common law, is that one is innocent until proven guilty.
One can be arrested for almost anything, such as due to a mistaken identity or false accusation. A police officer could pull over a driver who is driving erratically or making a wrong maneuver, and charge that person with a DUI, but if it could be proven that the person was not illegally intoxicated, then the charges will be dropped or changed to a lesser civil charge. In these cases, the arrested person has committed no crime.
Therefore, if one is arrested but not convicted, then that means that they should have no criminal record, and should be allowed free passage across the border.
Haaar! Did you notice you used the word "should"? When it comes to the authority granted to border agents, they do not even have to pretend to subscribe to "should".
A friend who was dinged with another teen for being a passenger joy riding in a car the other teen took without his fathers permission and who were subsequently "detained" was put through the whole booking process per the father's instructions to the local two man police force as a method of punishing his kid; has carried the old "pink deemed rehabilitated" card he had to apply for after a refusal in the late 70's and it took a five year waiting period until 1982 and has been told to keep it for as long as he wishes to cross the border as the newer forms sometimes require multiple, costly applications.
There were never any charges filed. It simply got entered into an old database that they'd been arrested and stayed there.
Why do you think the young Ontario girl recently arrested in the state of Georgia during a routine speeding stop is moving heaven and earth to confirm her bogus arrest record is totally expunged? If a hint of that stays in some database...she very well might be toast when attempting to cross in the future because border agents aren't going to give a rip about any explanation they cannot easily verify.
"Oh, but I was only arrested in 1966 for taking part in a bra burning protest".....yeah; that's what they all say....entry denied. On your way back whence you came you dangerous 80 year old senior citizen you.
Generally speaking, you will. The test is not whether or not you've been arrested. The test is if you're deceitful about information that the officer already knows.
If you're proven a liar, then they have the discretion to deny you entry.
I get asked if I've ever been arrested about 2 out of the 3 times I cross by land. Haven't had that question when going through customs at the airport yet.
I get asked if I've ever been arrested about 2 out of the 3 times I cross by land. Haven't had that question when going through customs at the airport yet.
There seems to be a much more aggressive officer at the land borders than the airports. Not sure why, but maybe it's because they feel less pressure to push people through. If the line is long and Peace Arch, so what, the line is long. There's no schedule. If you have 200 people trying to make a flight and it leaves in 1 hour, there's some pressure to clear everyone at some level.
There seems to be a much more aggressive officer at the land borders than the airports. Not sure why, but maybe it's because they feel less pressure to push people through. If the line is long and Peace Arch, so what, the line is long. There's no schedule. If you have 200 people trying to make a flight and it leaves in 1 hour, there's some pressure to clear everyone at some level.
Makes sense....or maybe I just put less effort into how I look when crossing the border by land. It's usually for camping, so I look a bit rougher.
So can Bill Clinton pass Canadian check points? He was convicted of perjury.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why should arrests without convictions be ground to deny admission at the border?
