6 ms·

Her sentence was commuted and the conviction was more than 10 years ago, so it's possible to apply for rehabilitation. Immigration is seeking to preemptively bl

Her sentence was commuted and the conviction was more than 10 years ago, so it's possible to apply for rehabilitation. Immigration is seeking to preemptively block this.

bbarnett 5y ago
One thing I do know, is that the data sharing arrangement between the US and Canada, shares criminal records. For both countries, pardons, commuted sentences, do not hide the transfer of information, and are meaningless. This is because each country only cares about the crime, and its own assessment of "should this person, with crime x, be allowed in". Outside of that, a presidential commuted sentence, by its very nature, is political, not court based. Lastly, each country puts the safety of its citizens, above the rights of foreigners to visit. I wanted to reply with these points, before reading the article, as generic, non-case specific logic is important here.
- bbarnett 5y ago
  Replying to myself here, after reading. I have no idea, after reading. I wish I knew if the delays were standard (eg, backlog), and so on. I also wish I knew how others in this situation fare. As a Canuck, I want no special treatment for anyone, pro or against, but just the job done correctly, and that means fair, compared to how others are treated / the law. Is her lawyer using the media / spinning things, to try to help the case? Maybe. Not enough info for me to know wtf.
- sandworm101 5y ago
  >> the rights of foreigners to visit. Which is not actually a right. Americans have no more a right to travel to Canada than Canadians have a right to come to the US. I venture that more canadians are probably denied entry to the US than Americans are denied by Canada.
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    >Which is not actually a right. It very much depends on who you ask. Some libertarians will say that it hasn't been that long the modern system has been in place. I think since roughly WWI? The lack of a "right" to enter a country could be compared with the modern lack of a right for pedestrians to walk in middle of most streets. Now and then some people get quite bitter about that.
  - Lammy 5y ago
    How quickly people forget: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Travel_Initiative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Travel_Init...
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  True, but I'm at a loss to see how the safety interests of Canadians are threatened by Chelsea Manning. It's not like she's violent or carried out a crime against members of the public. The crime, being against the state, was as much political as the commutation.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    Canada wasn't threatened by either of the friends of mine who weren't allowed into the country because of previous criminal convictions. The article isn't wrong when it points out that this occurs routinely. Why is it only wrong when it impacts someone with a cheering section? People will say "it isn't only wrong then!", but they're only angry... situationally.
    - perl4ever 5y ago
      >they're only angry... situationally. You don't know, though! I mean, not everybody gets angry that easy, but many are aware that you don't have to commit a crime or do something wrong to be barred from crossing an international border. I remember an article by a woman who was turned back from Canada because she had antidepressant medication with her.
      - tptacek 5y ago
        I spent a couple years working for a company in Calgary, with a staff mostly from the US, and this was a recurring concern. It's not a thing that just started for Chelsea Manning.
        perl4ever 5y ago
        What was a recurring concern? Politics? Psych meds? Commuted or expunged convictions?
        tptacek 5y ago
        That it was not a given that members of our team would be allowed past immigration control at the airport in Calgary.
- smnrchrds 5y ago
  > One thing I do know, is that the data sharing arrangement between the US and Canada, shares criminal records. Apparently they share way more than criminal records. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/canadian-woman-refused-u-s-entry-because-of-depression-1.2444960 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/canadian-woman-refuse...
sjg007 5y ago
Is there a gofundme for her? This is the kind of thing that wins wars and we should support her.
- sp332 5y ago
  There was a crowdfund for legal fees for an earlier thing, but it's gone now. She has a Patreon (xychelsea), and she already has lawyers working on the issue. https://mobile.twitter.com/lex_is/status/1435255042261635072 https://mobile.twitter.com/lex_is/status/1435255042261635072
inter_netuser 5y ago
they are seeking to block an entry waiver pre-emptively? I suppose that saves the application for a waiver, and she can just appeal right away via federal courts?
- desdiv 5y ago
  Here's the timeline of events (AFAIK): 1. On 2017-09-22, Ms. Manning attempted to enter Canada but was denied by the border guards. [0] 2. On or about On 2017-09-25, Ms. Manning received a letter from the Canadian government detailing why she was previously denied entry. 3. Ms. Manning and her lawyers files an appeal to the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board. A tribunal hearing is scheduled for 2021-10-07. Let's call this hearing "Hearing A". 4. While Hearing A was still pending, the Canadian government allowed Ms. Manning entry for a few days into Canada in 2018. 5. Both sides (the Canadian border official side and Ms. Manning's side) are able to argue their case before Hearing A. The title of this news story refers to the fact that the border official side plans to put forth an argument in Hearing A. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41391072 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41391072
  - inter_netuser 5y ago
    This seems rather standard. The fact that she was allowed despite rather well known criminal charges and jail time points to rather high likelyhood of her appeal being successful. I think that is highly unusual. This is probably just a campaign to generate some favourable publicity.
- q1w2 5y ago
  As someone who is neither in Canada, nor a Canadian citizen, would she even have jurisdiction to appeal to a Canadian court? Can anyone in the world file a case with the Canadian Supreme court and be heard? They would need to have some sort of legal standing to appear before the court.
  - freeone3000 5y ago
    She applied for entry and was rejected. That's enough standing.
petre 5y ago
Did she even break any Canadian laws? Or is it equivalent to blocking Navalny from entry on the grounds that he was convicted and imprisoned (on phony charges).
- lancepioch 5y ago
  Canada will acknowledge crimes that you've committed in other countries for denial of entry. As long as there is an equivalent law in Canada that is.
q1w2 5y ago
> Her sentence was commuted and the conviction was more than 10 years ago Neither of these facts are exemptions that apply to anyone else entering Canada.
lancepioch 5y ago
Canada doesn't recognize pardons and expungements from other countries. You must wait 5 years to apply for forgiveness after your sentence has ended (which would've been in Jan 2017).

Her sentence was commuted and the conviction was more than 10 years ago, so it's possible to apply for rehabilitation. Immigration is seeking to preemptively block this.

bbarnett 5y ago

One thing I do know, is that the data sharing arrangement between the US and Canada, shares criminal records. For both countries, pardons, commuted sentences, do not hide the transfer of information, and are meaningless. This is because each country only cares about the crime, and its own assessment of "should this person, with crime x, be allowed in". Outside of that, a presidential commuted sentence, by its very nature, is political, not court based. Lastly, each country puts the safety of its citizens, above the rights of foreigners to visit. I wanted to reply with these points, before reading the article, as generic, non-case specific logic is important here.

bbarnett 5y ago
Replying to myself here, after reading. I have no idea, after reading. I wish I knew if the delays were standard (eg, backlog), and so on. I also wish I knew how others in this situation fare. As a Canuck, I want no special treatment for anyone, pro or against, but just the job done correctly, and that means fair, compared to how others are treated / the law. Is her lawyer using the media / spinning things, to try to help the case? Maybe. Not enough info for me to know wtf.
sandworm101 5y ago
>> the rights of foreigners to visit. Which is not actually a right. Americans have no more a right to travel to Canada than Canadians have a right to come to the US. I venture that more canadians are probably denied entry to the US than Americans are denied by Canada.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  >Which is not actually a right. It very much depends on who you ask. Some libertarians will say that it hasn't been that long the modern system has been in place. I think since roughly WWI? The lack of a "right" to enter a country could be compared with the modern lack of a right for pedestrians to walk in middle of most streets. Now and then some people get quite bitter about that.
- Lammy 5y ago
  How quickly people forget: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Travel_Initiative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Travel_Init...
anigbrowl 5y ago
True, but I'm at a loss to see how the safety interests of Canadians are threatened by Chelsea Manning. It's not like she's violent or carried out a crime against members of the public. The crime, being against the state, was as much political as the commutation.
- tptacek 5y ago
  Canada wasn't threatened by either of the friends of mine who weren't allowed into the country because of previous criminal convictions. The article isn't wrong when it points out that this occurs routinely. Why is it only wrong when it impacts someone with a cheering section? People will say "it isn't only wrong then!", but they're only angry... situationally.
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    >they're only angry... situationally. You don't know, though! I mean, not everybody gets angry that easy, but many are aware that you don't have to commit a crime or do something wrong to be barred from crossing an international border. I remember an article by a woman who was turned back from Canada because she had antidepressant medication with her.
    - tptacek 5y ago
      I spent a couple years working for a company in Calgary, with a staff mostly from the US, and this was a recurring concern. It's not a thing that just started for Chelsea Manning.
      - perl4ever 5y ago
        What was a recurring concern? Politics? Psych meds? Commuted or expunged convictions?
        tptacek 5y ago
        That it was not a given that members of our team would be allowed past immigration control at the airport in Calgary.
smnrchrds 5y ago
> One thing I do know, is that the data sharing arrangement between the US and Canada, shares criminal records. Apparently they share way more than criminal records. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/canadian-woman-refused-u-s-entry-because-of-depression-1.2444960 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/canadian-woman-refuse...

sjg007 5y ago

Is there a gofundme for her? This is the kind of thing that wins wars and we should support her.

sp332 5y ago
There was a crowdfund for legal fees for an earlier thing, but it's gone now. She has a Patreon (xychelsea), and she already has lawyers working on the issue. https://mobile.twitter.com/lex_is/status/1435255042261635072 https://mobile.twitter.com/lex_is/status/1435255042261635072

inter_netuser 5y ago

they are seeking to block an entry waiver pre-emptively? I suppose that saves the application for a waiver, and she can just appeal right away via federal courts?

desdiv 5y ago
Here's the timeline of events (AFAIK): 1. On 2017-09-22, Ms. Manning attempted to enter Canada but was denied by the border guards. [0] 2. On or about On 2017-09-25, Ms. Manning received a letter from the Canadian government detailing why she was previously denied entry. 3. Ms. Manning and her lawyers files an appeal to the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board. A tribunal hearing is scheduled for 2021-10-07. Let's call this hearing "Hearing A". 4. While Hearing A was still pending, the Canadian government allowed Ms. Manning entry for a few days into Canada in 2018. 5. Both sides (the Canadian border official side and Ms. Manning's side) are able to argue their case before Hearing A. The title of this news story refers to the fact that the border official side plans to put forth an argument in Hearing A. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41391072 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41391072
- inter_netuser 5y ago
  This seems rather standard. The fact that she was allowed despite rather well known criminal charges and jail time points to rather high likelyhood of her appeal being successful. I think that is highly unusual. This is probably just a campaign to generate some favourable publicity.
q1w2 5y ago
As someone who is neither in Canada, nor a Canadian citizen, would she even have jurisdiction to appeal to a Canadian court? Can anyone in the world file a case with the Canadian Supreme court and be heard? They would need to have some sort of legal standing to appear before the court.
- freeone3000 5y ago
  She applied for entry and was rejected. That's enough standing.

petre 5y ago

Did she even break any Canadian laws? Or is it equivalent to blocking Navalny from entry on the grounds that he was convicted and imprisoned (on phony charges).

lancepioch 5y ago
Canada will acknowledge crimes that you've committed in other countries for denial of entry. As long as there is an equivalent law in Canada that is.

q1w2 5y ago

> Her sentence was commuted and the conviction was more than 10 years ago Neither of these facts are exemptions that apply to anyone else entering Canada.

lancepioch 5y ago

Canada doesn't recognize pardons and expungements from other countries. You must wait 5 years to apply for forgiveness after your sentence has ended (which would've been in Jan 2017).