They can deny entry for pretty much any reason.

You are correct that the US border policy with Canada doesn't make any sense.

Canada will deny a US citizen entry if they’ve ever had a DUI in their life, even if it was 30 years ago. Many people find this out the hard way.

A DUI is a criminal offence. You are being denied entry to the country because of the criminal offence.

Canadians are being denied entry into the US simply for what the US deems to be "immoral behavior".

That is a very slippery subjective slope to be on.

Even having investments in Cannabis stocks can get you barred for life.

Do you know where your mutual funds go at night...

DUI is also considered a felony in Canada.

Canada does not have felonies or misdemeanors. You are either in violation of the criminal code, or you aren't.

We have summary and indictable offences. A summary offence is more or less a misdemeanor, an indictable offence is basically a felony.

Yes, but the terminology and implications are different.

You can have a criminal conviction and still vote, for example.

Many US states restore the vote.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/felon-v...

"Many" but not nearly all. In Canada prisoners can and do vote.

I'm curious—would there be a way to comparatively analyze Canadian and American election results, to figure out whether prisoners' disenfranchisement has an impact on policy?

State to state comparisons would probably work better.

I suppose I should have said equivalent to a felony, since Canada uses different terms.

http://www.canadaduientrylaw.com/felony.php

A friend had an expunged disorderly conduct when he was 13. We were in our 20s, and were detained by the Canadian border for about 9 hours. Then they escorted us back because of the disorderly.

The second time I got detained was only for 5 hours though. The second time I went in mid to late 20s by myself. After searching my car for 3 hours, they didn't find anything and I was let go.

I hate it.

That's interesting, I went to Canada with my Mom and sister one time when they were visiting. My sister had a felony from when she was under 18 and it was also expunged or whatever the term.

We had to sit for about an hour and she had to go through a bunch of questioning but eventually they let us all through.

Every time tho I've had my car searched, it's too much of a hassle really to bother with going up there anymore for me personally.

I was detained for about an hour when entering at the Canadian border from the US. I'm a Canadian citizen, and was in the US for a conference for about a week. Canadian CBP is... something.

Canada is actually super good about this.

If you're coming from Australia, the official immigration docs ask do you have a DUI? If yes, was it below .07 Blood Alcohol Content?

(In Australia the crime is .05 or above, but in Canada the crime is only > .07)

So even if you broke the law in Australia and got a DUI at .06, Canada will ignore it, because technically driving at .06 in Canada is not a crime, so they don't deem you to have committed a crime at all!

Generally in Canada it's .08 legal limit. In BC it was dropped to .05

I've been denied entry in the past because I was insufficiently precise when writing down a date in my paperwork.

They can deny for any arbitrary reason, or no reason at all!

I don't see a single reason why you can be forced to incriminate yourself. If confession equals conviction, laws about right to remain silent should also apply.

I would happily say "no" and smile if I was you when asked about what you did in a different country that they have no business knowing.

>I don't see a single reason why you can be forced to incriminate yourself.

While thread didn't really get into citizenship, if you're aren't a citizen of the state in question you have no right of entry. The state has the right to ask for any information they wish and set criteria for entry as they wish. It's not a matter of "incrimination" as in you go to jail, it's a matter of obtaining permission for entry, you have no "right to remain silent". And in a democratic state I don't think that's immoral either. Knowing is in fact their business, and if it shouldn't be then the government should tell its border controls to not inquire at all.

>I would happily say "no" and smile if I was you when asked about what you did in a different country that they have no business knowing.

Obviously as a practical matter there are many situations where the odds of getting caught are minimal to non-existent, but I would be very cautious about casually committing perjury. Particularly in this worrying day and age of photos everywhere and ever increasing ML that can actually make sense of it and centralized datasets that governments may be able to gain access to. For example, particularly when the behavior is made legal I'd expect there to be a lot more people who post pictures of themselves using cannabis or not being concerned if someone else in the picture is because of course it's legal. Combine with spreading facial recognition and person tagging on places like Facebook and advertising (since it's legalized) that will be actively and legally interested in "is so-and-so a user so we can sell them related products" and someone could quite easily end up in a database saying "confirmed to use cannabis" without ever knowing. There are many times where "the coverup is worse then the crime" is quite true, and something that would merely get you politely or not so politely turned away would turn into a serious crime by lying about it. You can't know when an authority is asking you something out of actual interest vs a question they know the answer to already just to test you.

Honesty and political pressure seems better in this specific case given that it's not like there isn't already a major legalization movement in the US too. Canada is an extremely important business partner and source of tourism and ally. If enough Canadians were denied entry over this then even under this administration pressure to simply change the rules to ignore it would be very high. If not under this one then when the Democrats retake control.

I had to re-read the parent after seeing your comment. Are you saying:

1) It is racist to deny a non-citizen entry

2) Fuzzy rules for entry allow room for racial bias

3) Something else?

That's sort of orthogonal to the consequence of honestly answering the question.

And of course the policy also says that if they think you lied, they might use that as a reason to deny entry in the future.

Yes, but did not they teach you to think before talking?

They are free to not let you in, but you are free to ignore any irrelevant or intimate questions.

Nope. Ignoring or refusing to answer the question is grounds for denying admission or being permanently denied admission.

You can just say "no". And smile. Will be completely correct on your part.

> Guard: "Have you consumed weed in the last 30 days?"

> You: "No"

If you have consumed in the last 30 days, then your "No" response is definitely not correct.

Yes it is correct. They have no business asking this. If a question is incorrect, you can answer whatever you like to it.

Lying is only giving wrong answers on correct questions. If a person sticks their nose where it does not belong, too bad.

I have rights to do any kinds of thingd to my body, and I have exactly zero obligation to disclose it, unless in strict contexts of medical help or driving.

I don't understand your "teach you to think before talking" remark. I said your comment was orthogonal because it didn't address anything I had said in my other comment. Of course someone wanting to the enter the country will weigh their options, I'm just laying out the potential consequences, for someone that apparently had not heard of them (the other commenter, not you).

You have very few rights at a border. Almost any border, not just the US. A border is very much like a no-man's land where the law of the country you are entering or leaving is suspended. You can be held, searched without cause, refused entry at a guard's discretion (no reason is needed), and so on. Arguing your 'rights' at a border is one very good way to be seen as cause to get secondary screening and perhaps refusal of entry. And they are pretty good at detecting if you are lying - lots and lots of training there, you'd be surprised how easily unprepared people give themselves away in even the most simple lies.

You have no rights at the border.

Or within 100 miles of the border or any border services control point, like say an airport with international flights.

Not entirely true (re: no rights)

https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone

So no-one in San Francisco has any rights b/c it's within 100 miles from SFO ;)?

- I'm just kidding..

Not because it's near SFO, but because it's near the Pacific Ocean. They consider that a border. https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/05/who-lives-in-border-p...

Crossing a foreign border is a privilege not a right.

A problem we can fix!

More accurate to say that border control agents will not respect your rights at their border.

You seriously do not think that you can override Human Rights agreements with some "congress bill", do you?

For some time you might act that way, but you are trespassing.

There is no right to cross the border, but there's loads of other rights, human and otherwise, that you still undeniably have while being at the border.

The legislation I linked to suspends all constitutionally-guaranteed rights "at" the border (ie within 100 miles of a border crossing, including any airports with international flights) if you are not an American citizen. The suspension of constitutional rights has been tried and upheld by a number of SCOTUS cases.

There is no international body regulating any other kind of right, despite the well-meaning intention of a number of organizations.

They abuse it routinely. Almost any Canadian who crosses regularly has seen it or experienced it. Especially since 9/11. It's just part of life being next to an aggressive large imperial power.

>which has its own obligations before its citizens to uphold their human rights

So you want the country the person is traveling from to impose their Will on the country they are traveling to?

Border guards are duty-bound to turn away people that they suspect are likely to commit crime and, in the United States as a whole, weed possession/consumption is still considered a crime worthy of jail time.

Although I think weed should be legal, in the mean time I am not interested in my taxes paying for the confinement or deportation of Canadians. Ergo, one can support weed legalization and also believe that weed consumption can be used from a practical perspective to deny entrance to foreigners.

> Although I think weed should be legal, in the mean time I am not interested in my taxes paying for the confinement or deportation of Canadians. Ergo, one can support weed legalization and also believe that weed consumption can be used from a practical perspective to deny entrance to foreigners.

This makes no sense. How does having consumed weed in the past entail that one will consume weed in the United States? This is like saying that a person who has driven on the left in the past will drive on the left in the United States, and should therefore be denied entry. It's ridiculous.

I think driving on the left is a false analogy. We don't drive on the left because we enjoy it or because it makes us happy. However, if we have consumed weed in the recent past, that is a strong signal that we have a preference for weed and would pursue the experience again in the future.

If you and I had a betting market that allowed us to bet on an individual's likelihood of consuming weed while in the United States, knowledge of that person's past behavior in consuming weed would be a strong piece of evidence that you could use when making a bet.

Anybody consuming weed today is more likely to have consumed it in the last 30 days than somebody that is not consuming weed today.

So what probability do you assign to someone smoking weed illegally in the United States, given that they have smoked weed in a different country where it's legal?

I wonder if border screening is cheaper than just deporting convicts back to Canada?

Of course making actual behavior consequential rather than potential behavior doesn't have those delicious authoritarian overtones.