4 ms·

I had to shepard many South Americans and Europeans through American boarder security for this same job. I found Canadas process to be much more restrictive. T

by lbhdc 3y ago

I had to shepard many South Americans and Europeans through American boarder security for this same job. I found Canadas process to be much more restrictive. They similarly handed out decade+ bans. We had a legal team prepping the paperwork for these trips, they had the correct paperwork.

dghlsakjg 3y ago
Did the people entering the US from Europe/South America have criminal records? Part of the reason that it is harder for an American with a criminal record entering Canada is the fact that it is visa free. A convicted American at the Canadian border has likely not gone back and forth with immigration authorities, or had an interview at the embassy like a South American at the US border would. By the time a European or South American arrives at the border they have already submitted the paperwork to an embassy (or received an ESTA/visa waiver), and have been given permission. Without convincing proof that they are eligible to enter the USA, the airline won't even let them on the plane. The reality is that it is perfectly reasonable for a country to deny entry or investigate a convicted criminal before granting the privilege of entering the country. Doubly so when the purpose of entry is for work. As a non convict, I had to prove to Canada that I could support myself and would not be a burden on the medical or other social systems in addition to an FBI background check, and a variety of other paperwork before I was granted residency. It took upwards of a year for all that. By what reasoning should Canada prioritize or not investigate people that have, in the past, been a burden or danger to their society. Entry by non permanent residents or citizens is a privilege, and I think it is perfectly reasonable for a country to ensure that a convicted criminal won't pose a danger or burden.
- lbhdc 3y ago
  Everyone had to pass a security clearance that prevented them from accepting people with criminal convictions, but prior arrests with no-convictions were fine. Our work required Canadian work visas for us to operate in Canada, and everyone had the correct passport stamps before ever leaving (this again was handled by the legal team). We were getting hassled over the arrests without convictions (this was only air travel, we never drove). I am fine with countries doing whatever the need to. I think citizens getting subjected to similar treatment (tfa) pretty unreasonable.
  - dghlsakjg 3y ago
    Gotcha. I imagined you were driving a busload of roughnecks with convictions to the oil fields. It is absolutely BS that an arrest with no conviction would lead to delays at the border.

by lbhdc 3y ago

dghlsakjg 3y ago

Did the people entering the US from Europe/South America have criminal records? Part of the reason that it is harder for an American with a criminal record entering Canada is the fact that it is visa free. A convicted American at the Canadian border has likely not gone back and forth with immigration authorities, or had an interview at the embassy like a South American at the US border would. By the time a European or South American arrives at the border they have already submitted the paperwork to an embassy (or received an ESTA/visa waiver), and have been given permission. Without convincing proof that they are eligible to enter the USA, the airline won't even let them on the plane. The reality is that it is perfectly reasonable for a country to deny entry or investigate a convicted criminal before granting the privilege of entering the country. Doubly so when the purpose of entry is for work. As a non convict, I had to prove to Canada that I could support myself and would not be a burden on the medical or other social systems in addition to an FBI background check, and a variety of other paperwork before I was granted residency. It took upwards of a year for all that. By what reasoning should Canada prioritize or not investigate people that have, in the past, been a burden or danger to their society. Entry by non permanent residents or citizens is a privilege, and I think it is perfectly reasonable for a country to ensure that a convicted criminal won't pose a danger or burden.

lbhdc 3y ago
Everyone had to pass a security clearance that prevented them from accepting people with criminal convictions, but prior arrests with no-convictions were fine. Our work required Canadian work visas for us to operate in Canada, and everyone had the correct passport stamps before ever leaving (this again was handled by the legal team). We were getting hassled over the arrests without convictions (this was only air travel, we never drove). I am fine with countries doing whatever the need to. I think citizens getting subjected to similar treatment (tfa) pretty unreasonable.
- dghlsakjg 3y ago
  Gotcha. I imagined you were driving a busload of roughnecks with convictions to the oil fields. It is absolutely BS that an arrest with no conviction would lead to delays at the border.