Originally Posted by
gooselee
Is this a hypothetical, or do you have something in your past that you are genuinely worried about being of enough substance that border control would be keeping an eye on you?
I have the opposite suspicion, that CBP/CBSA wouldn't deny entry solely based on a rejected NEXUS/GE application. However, if there was something substantial that resulted in the trusted traveler denial, they most certainly could of course flag that person's passport record for additional inquiry when crossing borders.
If you really just have a few (or even a bunch) of minor traffic violations on your record (not something like vehicular homocide or a long string of repeat DUIs), I would sincerely hope that CBP/CBSA have much bigger fish to fry. If it's significant enough of an offense, they certainly have other ways to find out and flag your passport without you having to apply for program.
From what I understand on the GE side at least, the application is more about the fact that you honestly and openly disclosed any minor infractions vs. the fact that you actually have them in your past.
No, purely hypothetical. I understand that they have other ways to find out, but I've seen multiple stories of people being let in to Canada countless times, until one time they got randomly selected for secondary and a criminal b/g check, refused entry, and passport flagged for life so if they attempt to return they'll throw a flag and be invariably sent to secondary.
Honestly it's not even the CBP I'm worried about. I am 99.9% sure I'm eligible for GE. It's our friends north of the border, the CBSA, that I'm worried about. It's my understanding that unlike the USA (at least for immigration law), Canada does not have any concept of a "misdemeanor" or "felony" - they have something similar that dictates how the offense is prosecuted, but as far as a b/g check goes, you either committed a crime or you didn't. Whether it was a petty theft or first degree murder, you're a criminal. Additionally, they apparently have no concept of "moral turpitude" either. Can anyone who actually is Canadian or very familiar with Canadian law verify this or correct me?