Countries are sovereign. I think they can pretty much turn away whoever they please. No one has a right to enter another country.
true true but I think what's happening with the advent of things like air travel, gasoline and cars, TV advertising & internet, like-languages and friendly enticements to come over and visit, and the fact that Canada and the US are not at war and have not thought about it since some time in the 1800s, is that people actually go book flights, are allowed to plan trips and give clear and free indication that they intend on visiting a city in another land more and more than ever before in human history... I mean, what a concept to ASSUME we can and should travel to some place up north...
However, it seems only recently has something come along in this neck of the woods (I am most specifically referring to the border between the US and vancouver) that is seriously straining to reverse this tide of normally less hassled entry and travel freedom. It's as if someone or something WANTS to stop people from coming in and when that newly enforced passport thingy came to be with air travel this past winter, I personally really felt the crunch.
basically it sucks so I am bummed about it now.
There are other threads about that passport thing, but a friend of ours on the same ski trip we had planned was denied entry and it threw everyone for a loop! He was turned away so he instantly flew back to the States, rented a car and drove in with no problems at all because, well, he still could legally do that at the time. He also has since written to Canada and had the whole very old issue on his file taken care of. But we all felt this "... are you guys doing here? Get lost!" attitude in a land that has been historically known for NOT taking that stance toward pretty much anyone ever before! (no one else in our group trip of ski friends coming in from 4 different US cities had any problems, btw)
Sovereign or no, it just is not right! Like, WHY the big flex of muscle now and why to the US traveler now? (oh wait, I could probably answer that and might even agree with some of its premise too, sadly enough. Time to vote again, though, eh? Big time!)
MM
I do have one question though:
if you were going to YYZ on a miles run but they turned you away, let you fly on the itin you had but never let you enter CA, would the MR count in the eyes of the airline? I think so but who knows the rules on landing, etc. Maybe that's a stupid Q. Sorry.
__________________
That’s Punny: A guy with miles to burn may well find a gal who wants to play with fire.
Fair enough. By immigrate I meant enter the country legally through an approved immigration channel, but if my word choice is off, use entry instead.
In other words, eligible for entry (whatever criteria you must meet as a citizen from country X wanting to visit country Y). My argument is that if you meet those criteria for entry, it should not be that a single immigration officer having a bad day can deny you entry without reasonable cause.
However, if you overstay your VISA or are found to be abusing the privledge of entry by committing crimes or attempting to illegaly set up residence, that country should have the right to deport you and bar you permanently.
I don't wish to put too fine a point on this or be argumentative, but have you ever tried to enter Canada or any other country and been turned back? I never have, so can't say anything based on personal experience. My guess is that the decision to deny someone entry at an airport or border crossing point would not rest with the most junior immigration officer, that is the initial screener, especially not in an "advanced" country like Canada with a Western-type legal system. Indeed, I would be very surprised if the lower level person would not have to involve "a supervisor and/or immigration lawyer" (their lawyer, not one retained by you) and get their concurrence in a decision to deny you entry. Now, you may think that they should disclose to you their reasons for denying you entry; and you may think that you should be afforded other incidents of "due process," including the opportunity to be represented by counsel; but standing on a country's doorstep, not within its borders where you might have some legal rights, you don't. (Would you really expect/want the US government to grant a full panoply of rights to anyone and everyone who could get a common carrier to drop him/her at one of our airports, ports, or land crossings, or arrive at one on their own?)
Now I do see that you are from Fayetteville, NC, home of the go-to guys of the 82nd Airborne, the Screaming Eagles. If you thought they were going to turn you away, then you might intimate that you are a very close friend of both Senators Dole and Burr, who would gladly dispatch the 82nd Airborne to intervene if you were hassled. The Canucks have no answer to the 82nd Airborne.
Fair enough. By immigrate I meant enter the country legally through an approved immigration channel, but if my word choice is off, use entry instead.
In other words, eligible for entry (whatever criteria you must meet as a citizen from country X wanting to visit country Y). My argument is that if you meet those criteria for entry, it should not be that a single immigration officer having a bad day can deny you entry without reasonable cause.
However, if you overstay your VISA or are found to be abusing the privledge of entry by committing crimes or attempting to illegaly set up residence, that country should have the right to deport you and bar you permanently.
I don't wish to put too fine a point on this or be argumentative, but have you ever tried to enter Canada or any other country and been turned back? I never have, so can't say anything based on personal experience. My guess is that the decision to deny someone entry at an airport or border crossing point would not rest with the most junior immigration officer, that is the initial screener, especially not in an "advanced" country like Canada with a Western-type legal system. Indeed, I would be very surprised if the lower level person would not have to involve "a supervisor and/or immigration lawyer" (their lawyer, not one retained by you) and get their concurrence in a decision to deny you entry. Now, you may think that they should disclose to you their reasons for denying you entry; and you may think that you should be afforded other incidents of "due process," including the opportunity to be represented by counsel; but standing on a country's doorstep, not within its borders where you might have some legal rights, you don't. (Would you really expect/want the US government to grant a full panoply of rights to anyone and everyone who could get a common carrier to drop him/her at one of our airports, ports, or land crossings, or arrive at one on their own?)
Now I do see that you are from Fayetteville, NC, home of the go-to guys of the 82nd Airborne, the Screaming Eagles. If you thought the immigration people were going to turn you away, then you might intimate that you are a very close friend of both Senators Dole and Burr, who would gladly dispatch the 82nd Airborne to intervene if you were hassled. The Canucks have no answer to the 82nd Airborne.
Just got back from my same day US-YVR-US trip. Purpose was to take the QF flight YVR-SFO.
Customs was not about to join me in my enthusiasm for aviation. I tried to get in the line with the nicest looking agent. Looks are deceiving! Here's the conversation:
Me: Good afternoon!
Agent: Purpose of your trip.
Me: pleasure
Agent: how long are you staying
Me: just for the day
Agent: (glare) What hotel are you staying at
Me: Oh, I'm heading back to the states right away
Agent: (icy stare) So why would you come here just for the day
Me: I love to fly. It's a mileage run
Agent: (annoyed) What do you do for a living?
Me: (nervous) I'm a rabbi
Agent: So you just fly off on your own? When's the last time you left the country?
Me: We travelled to....
Agent: (cutting me off) Who is "we"?
Me: My partner.
Agent: Does she know you are here?
Me: HE knows about my crazy passion!
Agent (not smiling): Where do you get the money to do this.
.....
It only lasted about 3 minutes, and by the grace of God I was not sent to secondary!
you see that's what I hate about customs and immigration people (and policy)
they assume a certain type of person exists and only that type. They try to flub you up and I guess if someone is say, honest but has a confidence problem or something, then that person would be screwed. Similarly, a crafty scammer will get thru simply for knowing how to play the game. But why must they catagorize and assume? Why assume it's a she (your partner) and why does money come into it? etc etc. Makes me cringe with anger at the stupidity that is in power!
__________________
That’s Punny: A guy with miles to burn may well find a gal who wants to play with fire.
I know absolutely none of the details, but I am quite certain that those who want to immigrate to Canada, the US, or most other countries, must arrange it before stepping off an international flight and you want to relocate there permanently.
I wouldn't be so certain that your "must arrange it before" is an actual "must arrange it before stepping off an international flight" for one and all in most other countries.
It's not the definitive case for the US, nor is it the definitive case for the EU states -- -- perhaps even all EU states??? -- with which I am most familiar. Just run through the list of most OECD countries that have democratic elections and proper research and it's to be found that there are ways to relocate permanently even without arranging it with the government authorities prior to stepping off an international flight with most of those countries. .... even going beyond asylum claims.
Family reunification, spousal/parental regularization, change of work/residency status, etc.
The "must arrange" with the authorities prior to stepping off an international flight need not even be the case with regard to a great number of South American and Asian countries. Again, family reunification, spousal/parental regularization, change of work/residency status, etc. AFTER stepping off an international flight.
__________________
This game is not as much fun as it used to be: 2008/2009 Frequent Flyer Program Fleecing Award goes to Delta Airlines
Countries are sovereign. I think they can pretty much turn away whoever they please. No one has a right to enter another country.
The EU member states haven't learned that is not the case always?
More seriously, there are situations of family reunification and spousal/parental regularization where countries have surrendered some sovereignty in this area and cannot turn away whomever they please given their obligations under EU agreements.
__________________
This game is not as much fun as it used to be: 2008/2009 Frequent Flyer Program Fleecing Award goes to Delta Airlines
A lot of what is written here, though I am sure was frightening for those who don't deal with customs officials on a weekly frequency, are anecdotal and really aren't out of the ordinary. Customs officials are not there to be nice and friendly; it is their job to be suspicious. They will ask you three or four questions, and if you tell them that you are staying for less than a day, that is where the questioning will most likely have its focus. Getting pulled into secondary for two hours is very very rare.
Canada Customs and their obsession with pornography is embarassing, and the OP has every right to be upset. (A more generous person may infer that they had received some sort of tip that a German kiddie porn baron was passing through that day; more likely, they are just a little bit retentive and obsess over dirty pictures.) Still, when you see the number of pax that walk through Customs in less than 5 minutes every day, it is clear that Customs cannot and does not pull a lot of people out of line.
How could you avoid this hassle completely on a mileage run? Well, you could stretch the definition of "business". A one day trip to Calgary could allow you to pick up an important book relating to your field at the University of Calgary; you could finally see that example of late 1970s shopping mall that you want to invest in back home. Whatever, as long as it isn't untrue, it doesn't have to be the whole truth.
I wouldn't be so certain that your "must arrange it before" is an actual "must arrange it before stepping off an international flight" for one and all in most other countries.
It's not the definitive case for the US, nor is it the definitive case for the EU states -- -- perhaps even all EU states??? -- with which I am most familiar. Just run through the list of most OECD countries that have democratic elections and proper research and it's to be found that there are ways to relocate permanently even without arranging it with the government authorities prior to stepping off an international flight with most of those countries. .... even going beyond asylum claims.
Family reunification, spousal/parental regularization, change of work/residency status, etc.
The "must arrange" with the authorities prior to stepping off an international flight need not even be the case with regard to a great number of South American and Asian countries. Again, family reunification, spousal/parental regularization, change of work/residency status, etc. AFTER stepping off an international flight.
Imagine, if you will, someone has just arrived at one of our international airports and they are without a visa of the sort that would allow the possibility of immigration to the US. Now, when they are passing through passport control and having that little chitchat with the agent sitting there, they let him/her know that if they like it here, they will stay awhile and seek permission to live and work here as long as they please. How do you think the colloquy would go with the US Customs (ICE) agent might go after they shared that information with him/her? (If you would like to substitute Canada for US, feel free to do so.) Do you think he/she would say to the new arrival something like, "Well, we are flattered that you would consider immigrating to this country, and we hope you will chose to stay and make this your new home. I don't wish to hold you up here with silly formalities."?
Every EU country scans your passport into the Schengen Information System upon entry. You can read about it here.
Really? Even non Schengen countries? That makes sense, to use the same system, but it surprises me. The Wikipedia article implies that only 13 European countries use the system fully, and the UK & Eire use it a little, but it is confusing.
Really? Even non Schengen countries? That makes sense, to use the same system, but it surprises me. The Wikipedia article implies that only 13 European countries use the system fully, and the UK & Eire use it a little, but it is confusing.
Even Schengen countries don't always swipe/enter the passport into SIS.
SIS being updated in real-time used to also be an issue since it was batched processed.
__________________
This game is not as much fun as it used to be: 2008/2009 Frequent Flyer Program Fleecing Award goes to Delta Airlines
I got this in Munich once while traveling with a friend who looks like he's spent a bit too much time in Berkeley.
My response? "Plenty." That was the end of it.
Regarding quick trips (MRs), I don't see anything wrong with telling them you're staying for leisure for 4 days and then changing your mind and turning around after you leave the customs hall...
