Warning to all terbites crossing the border!!!

[fuji]

They have to have grounds for deeming you a threat. It would help if you read the act and regulations that govern who is inadmissible (all online) rather than wildly stretching offhand comments in news articles.

Examples of things that could lead to you being deemed a threat: You uttered a threat, or have a history of violent behavior, you are affiliated with an activist group known for violence, or as in this case a documented history of suicidal behavior. The key word here is documented. Evidence. Fact based. Something you admitted, were witnessed doing, or that they have other proof of.

The agent has to be able to document a reason and provide evidence to justify it in his decision, which he has to record at the time of denying you. You may not be told the detailed reason, but it is there in your file.

"I didn't like the look of him" is not a reason. "I was having a bad day" is not evidence. "I found an internet post where he expressed an intention to participate in an anti free trade riot, and here it is" is evidence.

This isn't arbitrary they had to have a factual basis to deem you a threat. The example of that women was suicide but the key point is that they had a factual basis for deeming her a threat to herself, it was not arbitrary.

 

[elise]

Shake down cross border shoppers?? I have not paid any GST in more than a year for goods coming back from the US... and I am over my limit all the time. Tonight, I had $350 (when I was allowed $200)... and I was not "shaken down" for GST. I was expecting that I would have to pay it but was pleasantly surprised when he said "Welcome back to Canada. Have a nice night", after I declared what i was bringing back... and he did not even ask if I had any alcohol or tobacco

Usually the only time phone or computer is searched is when something has made them suspicious of you

I agree. No one said they are aways assholes but they can be if they wanna be.
I've been stopped for speeding and let go with a warning. I've also gotten full boat speeding tickets for 15 km/h over the limit. It is all at the discretion of the officer (be it border or traffic cop).

By shake down I had in my mind an episode of the Border Security show on Nat Geo where a guy bought a dog in the US and said he paid $500 no receipt. The border guard thought it was worth more, went online and found someone else who was selling the same type of dog for $1200.
Thats $25 vs $60 in GST. I call that shaking down for a few bucks.

I've gone across many many times and just like you, have been waived through. I'm nice to them, I hope they are in return, sometimes doesn't matter 'cause someone else pissed in their cornflakes and you get attitude for no apparent reason.

 

[elise]

The agent has to be able to document a reason and provide evidence to justify it in his decision, which he has to record at the time of denying you. You may not be told the detailed reason, but it is there in your file.

All he needs to say is that your story seemed inconsistent or he felt you were lying.
The threat does not need to be real (threat is very loosely defined here - it can be that the person entering may do something illegal when in the country - yes, they still haven't done anything illegal at that point).

It can be a perceived threat (watch for that phrase at the Sammy Yatim murder trial). A country is not under any obligation to let a foreign national into its borders. Can the denial be arbitrary? Can be but not likely. If the guards denies entry to every other person on a whim then his supervisors will ask whats up? If he lets everyone through without the occasional "in depth assessment" he will get the same question fro the supervisors.

Border guards have a duty to protect the country and public. They are given extraordinary powers and a wide berth of discretion. Yes, they have guidelines to follow but all they need is to "feel" something about the traveller to deny entry - if they are going to arrest them for smuggling then yes hard evidence is needed.

Watch the TV show on Nat Geo channel it is really eye-opening what they do and how they do it.

They had a Russian guy with an inconsistent story with some lying - nothing more. He was denied entry. He was offered to voluntarily withdraw his application to enter Canada. He protested and they had a trial the next day (he spent the time in a holding cell until the trial) was denied again and is now barred from entering Canada for 2 to 10 years (I can't remember exactly what he got).

They also denied an US citizen entry (he was an IT guy) simply because they found an email that he was going to do something at a client company he was visiting - he was only going to be in Canada for a week.

 

[cunning linguist]

I agree. No one said they are aways assholes but they can be if they wanna be.
I've been stopped for speeding and let go with a warning. I've also gotten full boat speeding tickets for 15 km/h over the limit. It is all at the discretion of the officer (be it border or traffic cop).

By shake down I had in my mind an episode of the Border Security show on Nat Geo where a guy bought a dog in the US and said he paid $500 no receipt. The border guard thought it was worth more, went online and found someone else who was selling the same type of dog for $1200.
Thats $25 vs $60 in GST. I call that shaking down for a few bucks.

I've gone across many many times and just like you, have been waived through. I'm nice to them, I hope they are in return, sometimes doesn't matter 'cause someone else pissed in their cornflakes and you get attitude for no apparent reason.

What a Greek Tragedy, an extra $35 in taxes.

The onus is on the traveller to prove the value of the item they're importing. Don't like it? Buy local and support the Canadian economy.

 

[SkyRider]

http://consumerist.com/2014/07/07/c...-to-u-s-or-you-might-not-be-allowed-on-plane/

Charge your electronics.

 

[OddSox]

They may need a reason to bar you from entry, but not much of a reason...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/d...son-odd-cases-of-refused-entry-to-the-US.html

 

[rysard]

Originally Posted by stinkynuts
...No reason was given at all. They searched my car and had a dog sniff my ass.

Well, at least you weren't forced to sniff the dogs ass.

ROFL - u guys should have your own show...

Back on topic - I plan to cross the border as part of an evangelical gospel group or stay home.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Shake down cross border shoppers?? I have not paid any GST in more than a year for goods coming back from the US... and I am over my limit all the time. Tonight, I had $350 (when I was allowed $200)... and I was not "shaken down" for GST. I was expecting that I would have to pay it but was pleasantly surprised when he said "Welcome back to Canada. Have a nice night", after I declared what i was bringing back... and he did not even ask if I had any alcohol or tobacco

Usually the only time phone or computer is searched is when something has made them suspicious of you

Obviously, you always understate which is okay but being lucky doesn't mean you won't get caught one day.

 

[GPIDEAL]

All he needs to say is that your story seemed inconsistent or he felt you were lying.
The threat does not need to be real (threat is very loosely defined here - it can be that the person entering may do something illegal when in the country - yes, they still haven't done anything illegal at that point).

It can be a perceived threat (watch for that phrase at the Sammy Yatim murder trial). A country is not under any obligation to let a foreign national into its borders. Can the denial be arbitrary? Can be but not likely. If the guards denies entry to every other person on a whim then his supervisors will ask whats up? If he lets everyone through without the occasional "in depth assessment" he will get the same question fro the supervisors.

Border guards have a duty to protect the country and public. They are given extraordinary powers and a wide berth of discretion. Yes, they have guidelines to follow but all they need is to "feel" something about the traveller to deny entry - if they are going to arrest them for smuggling then yes hard evidence is needed.

Watch the TV show on Nat Geo channel it is really eye-opening what they do and how they do it.

They had a Russian guy with an inconsistent story with some lying - nothing more. He was denied entry. He was offered to voluntarily withdraw his application to enter Canada. He protested and they had a trial the next day (he spent the time in a holding cell until the trial) was denied again and is now barred from entering Canada for 2 to 10 years (I can't remember exactly what he got).

They also denied an US citizen entry (he was an IT guy) simply because they found an email that he was going to do something at a client company he was visiting - he was only going to be in Canada for a week.

I know an engineer visiting his HQ in Texas and one of his subordinates was questioned because he had a screwdriver in his belongings (perhaps in a little tool kit).

 

[Stoo]

Lol.

I always have a pass lock on my phone.

But if they can seize your phone, can they demand your pass lock #?

Fucking border patrols.

With all of things, the answer depends on how badly you want to enter the country. If your phone or laptop is password protected (as it should be) and the Border guy wants it, then you can always refuse to give it... at which point you will be either refused entry, or detained long enough that your plans are going to have to change and for them to hack your password.

People are denied entry in the Paranoid States of America all the time, for all sorts of lame reasons. You can be denied entry by any guard, for any reason, anytime. Hell, they don't even need a reason. I have a couple of kids that travel and work extensively, and I think that they have been denied entry even to transit the US. The guy reviewed their travl documents and simply said that he wasn't going to allow them in (This was in Toronto, where you clear US immigration at the airport) that day, but that they were free to try again the next days. Talk about a power trip. In each case, the airlines involved were really good at allowing them to reschedule their flights, without charge, or with minimal cost. I suspect that the reason that my kids were denied was simply because the guard figured that they were going to try to work there.

And there's NEVER any point in getting all pissy with these guys. It seems like that little immigration area in an airport is something of a no-man's land, when it comes to your "rights" especially when you're a foreign national...

 

[GPIDEAL]

With all of things, the answer depends on how badly you want to enter the country. If your phone or laptop is password protected (as it should be) and the Border guy wants it, then you can always refuse to give it... at which point you will be either refused entry, or detained long enough that your plans are going to have to change and for them to hack your password.

People are denied entry in the Paranoid States of America all the time, for all sorts of lame reasons. You can be denied entry by any guard, for any reason, anytime. Hell, they don't even need a reason. I have a couple of kids that travel and work extensively, and I think that they have been denied entry even to transit the US. The guy reviewed their travl documents and simply said that he wasn't going to allow them in (This was in Toronto, where you clear US immigration at the airport) that day, but that they were free to try again the next days. Talk about a power trip. In each case, the airlines involved were really good at allowing them to reschedule their flights, without charge, or with minimal cost. I suspect that the reason that my kids were denied was simply because the guard figured that they were going to try to work there.

And there's NEVER any point in getting all pissy with these guys. It seems like that little immigration area in an airport is something of a no-man's land, when it comes to your "rights" especially when you're a foreign national...

OK. I usually vent to myself but always display an obedient and respectful demeanor. Looks like I better delete that icon on my laptop's desktop "Cum-Swallowing Milfs"?

 

[GPIDEAL]

They have to have grounds for deeming you a threat. It would help if you read the act and regulations that govern who is inadmissible (all online) rather than wildly stretching offhand comments in news articles.

Examples of things that could lead to you being deemed a threat: You uttered a threat, or have a history of violent behavior, you are affiliated with an activist group known for violence, or as in this case a documented history of suicidal behavior. The key word here is documented. Evidence. Fact based. Something you admitted, were witnessed doing, or that they have other proof of.

The agent has to be able to document a reason and provide evidence to justify it in his decision, which he has to record at the time of denying you. You may not be told the detailed reason, but it is there in your file.

"I didn't like the look of him" is not a reason. "I was having a bad day" is not evidence. "I found an internet post where he expressed an intention to participate in an anti free trade riot, and here it is" is evidence.

This isn't arbitrary they had to have a factual basis to deem you a threat. The example of that women was suicide but the key point is that they had a factual basis for deeming her a threat to herself, it was not arbitrary.

Fuji, you seem to know something about this issue.

Are you aware of such regulations and can you post a link?

 

[cunning linguist]

Fuji, you seem to know something about this issue.

Are you aware of such regulations and can you post a link?

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/section-34.html

Security

34. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds for
(a) engaging in an act of espionage that is against Canada or that is contrary to Canada’s interests;
(b) engaging in or instigating the subversion by force of any government;
(b.1) engaging in an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada;
(c) engaging in terrorism;
(d) being a danger to the security of Canada;
(e) engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada; or
(f) being a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in acts referred to in paragraph (a), (b), (b.1) or (c).
(2) [Repealed, 2013, c. 16, s. 13]
2001, c. 27, s. 34; 2013, c. 16, s. 13.

 

[GPIDEAL]

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/section-34.html

Thank you but I was thinking about those Stateside.

(OT: BTW, I don't think gun ownership laws are analogous to Bill C-36).

 

[cunning linguist]

Thank you but I was thinking about those Stateside.

(OT: BTW, I don't think gun ownership laws are analogous to Bill C-36).

If you're attempting to enter a country where you have no legal right to enter, be prepared to face such scrutiny. There are many shared practices between the CBP and CBSA.

(Arbitrary and draconian restrictions of freedoms that do not aid the public, what's not to see?)

 

[GPIDEAL]

If you're attempting to enter a country where you have no legal right to enter, be prepared to face such scrutiny. There are many shared practices between the CBP and CBSA.

(Arbitrary and draconian restrictions of freedoms that do not aid the public, what's not to see?)

Okay but do you have a link of the American regulations like you did for the Canadian?

(I can't see that having more liberal gun laws, like in the U.S., for the usual restricted firearms, would make it as safe or more safe for the public at large.)

 

[elise]

Understate?? Being lucky has nothing to do with it. I am a Nexus cardholder, so I declare everything I that I bring back (to the next highest dollar) & sometimes increase the value by $10-$15 in case I forgot something or made an error calculating my total. So, I have no fear of "getting caught" by a random search.

Being a Nexus card holder explains a lot. I can see why you don't want to risk losing the privilege of quick crossings and declare everything. The average "tourist" typically can't justify a Nexus card because they don't cross the border frequently enough to warrant one. (NEXUS is designed to expedite the border clearance process for low-risk, pre-approved travellers into Canada and the United States).

Just be careful that you never get caught if C36 becomes law - that will get your card shredded.

 

[fuji]

All he needs to say is that your story seemed inconsistent or he felt you were lying.

That is actually something different. You have to justify your grounds for entering the US, the burden of proof to show that you fit one of the immigration categories lies with you. So if you are claiming that you are coming to shop for the day, but you don't know where any stores are, and your car is packed full of personal belongings, he is going to doubt your story and deny you entry formally on the grounds that you haven't proved your case.

That doesn't make you inadmissible permanently, like a determination that you intended violence or may be a threat to others. These categories of inadmissibility are well defined and the agent has to come up with something at least resembling probable cause, with real evidence, to declare you inadmissible.

So yes if your story doesn't add up you fail to prove you have reason to enter, but that doesn't mean you will be denied the next time. Though it likely means you will get additional screening. (Though if it goes beyond not adding up and there is proof you lied to the officer, lying itself if grounds to deny entry. But that is beyond the story just not adding up.)

Being declared a threat or confessing to drug use, as we were discussing, require the agent to produce some level of proof and then impacts your ability to enter the US permanently.

This stuff if a lot less arbitrary than you think it is. The officers are trained to act like they are asking offhand questions as an afterthought in order to put you at ease so you will volunteer more but in fact they are categorizing you on a fairly rigorous set of bureaucratic criteria.

 

[buttercup]

Umm, sorry buttercup, but I don't see what set you off.
. .
Let me reword what I said to see if that helps.
I don't have a problem with the CBSA stopping drugs and child pornography at the border.
I also don't have a problem with LE getting those who are responsible for child pornography, drugs, (murder, rape and kidnapping too). Do you?

Border guards have been given extraordinary powers to search and seize, acting on mere suspicion. They were given these extra powers because thwarting a terrorist attack was considered even more important than citizens' rights. The urgency to snuff out the imminent or immediate threat of great harm, right there, right now, is enough to justify the extra powers.

The thing we should be recognizing as being very bad is that these extra powers they were given to help them combat terrorism in airports are being used in the quest to clear up ordinary crimes, i.e crimes having no connection to terrorism.

The threat of terrorism violence is the only reason for, and justification of, giving the authorities the right and the power to search where they like and seize what they like, and refuse what and whom they like.

Now you, elise, as I understand it, are saying: hey -- now they have been given these extraordinary combat-terrorism powers, it's ok for the authorities to use these powers to combat child porn and drugs.

I too don't have a problem with LE getting those responsible for child pornography, drugs, (murder, rape and kidnapping too). What I have a problem with is with the authorities using their powers of warrantless go-anywhere search and seizure, to combat these crimes.

Citizens have a right not to be subjected to warrantless searches. There is no justification for abusing those rights, just because the accused person happens to be in an airport, or near a border. The abuse of rights is only justified if there is, or might be, an imminent threat of massive deadly violence, like blowing up an aeroplane.

Ordinary crime does not carry that imminent threat. For that reason, ordinary crime does not justify the use of the special measures.

You would surely be hugely outraged if the police were to suggest that they should be allowed to extend their combat-terrorism-in-airport powers, to stop and search your car, driving along the 401, on the grounds simply that they want to see if you have any child porn. Your outrage would not be reduced just because they happen to find some ch.po. in a couple of cases.

So why are you not equally outraged when they use their terrorism airport powers to search for purveyors of child porn in airports? If the authorities have good reasons for suspecting ch.po., by all means let them obtain a warrant and search the suspect in accordance with the warrant, and if they then get the evidence to justify it, arrest the person and get ready for the trial.

It's a question of basic respect for human rights. We should not be content to set aside our basic human rights, on the grounds simply that it would make it easier to catch ch.po. purveyors, or drug dealers, or murderers.

I shudder when I come across people who have so little regard for their (and my) basic human rights that they are happy with the idea that it's ok to abuse my right to be free of unwarranted search, in their quest to catch ordinary criminals. IMO, the major role of government is to prevent such abuse of individual rights, and I would prefer to see us all pushing them in that direction.

 

[elise]

Border guards have been given extraordinary powers to search and seize, acting on mere suspicion. They were given these extra powers because thwarting a terrorist attack was considered even more important than citizens' rights. The urgency to snuff out the imminent or immediate threat of great harm, right there, right now, is enough to justify the extra powers.

I disagree they have had these powers for a long long time - well before terrorism became a buzzword and the 9/11 attacks .

The thing we should be recognizing as being very bad is that these extra powers they were given to help them combat terrorism in airports are being used in the quest to clear up ordinary crimes, i.e crimes having no connection to terrorism.

What "extra" powers are you referring to? What they can do in terms of search and seizure they have done forever. They are not being used "clear up" anything, they are being used to prevent and intercept entry into the country of undesirable people and contraband (alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, child porn etc)… They are only interested in what crosses the border not what goes on within the country.

The threat of terrorism violence is the only reason for, and justification of, giving the authorities the right and the power to search where they like and seize what they like, and refuse what and whom they like.

No. They are not there to ONLY to look for terrorists. They use their powers to search/seize contraband, collect duties/tax on goods legally entering, and screening entry to foreign nationals wanting to enter the country for what ever reason.

Now you, elise, as I understand it, are saying: hey -- now they have been given these extraordinary combat-terrorism powers, it's ok for the authorities to use these powers to combat child porn and drugs.

Let me reword what I said to see if that helps.
I don't have a problem with the CBSA stopping drugs and child pornography at the border.
I also don't have a problem with LE getting those who are responsible for child pornography, drugs, (murder, rape and kidnapping too). Do you?

I never said, or intended to suggest, that those powers that the CBSA has, should be extended to LE inside the country. Hell no. I think the powers the border guards have are already excessive (although probably necessary).

Why didn't you quote the last sentence - did you miss it?

Citizens have a right not to be subjected to warrantless searches.

Tell that to the border guard, not me. They can empty your car on the parking lot, your luggage all over the table, find nothing, tell you you are free to go and leave you to clean up the mess.

So why are you not equally outraged when they use their terrorism airport powers to search for purveyors of child porn in airports? If the authorities have good reasons for suspecting ch.po., by all means let them obtain a warrant and search the suspect in accordance with the warrant, and if they then get the evidence to justify it, arrest the person and get ready for the trial.

I'm starting to think you haven't crossed very many borders in your lifetime yet, have you? Why, because that is a very naive statement. I don't think you can imagine the delays and line ups if they had to get a warrant to look through an individuals belongings or to search a semi-truck. Thats not rational. I'm guessing you must have a big problem when going to a concert or a theme park and gate security wants to check your bags for weapons or alcohol.

I shudder when I come across people who have so little regard for their (and my) basic human rights that they are happy with the idea that it's ok to abuse my right to be free of unwarranted search, in their quest to catch ordinary criminals.

Keep shuddering. When you are at the border entering a foreign country or re-entering your own, like others in previous posts have said, you are in a no-mans land and the regular rules do not apply. Sorry, I don't make these rules up and they have been there since before I was born.

If you are an American entering Canada (or the other way around) you can be denied entry if they think or suspect you may do something illegal when you are inside the country. Nothing illegal has been done yet, they just think you might do something illegal.

Yeah, I support what the border guards do because just about everyone lies, like trying to sneak stuff across when exceeding allowed limits, or trying to minimize the amount you pay taxes on, want to work illegally in Canada etc. So if they want to search your laptop for illegal porn or for drugs in your suitcase I'm all for it. I'm also subject to the same procedures like it or not. I don't like, but grudgingly accept their role as tax collectors. It bugs me when they get anal about trying to collect every penny in taxes from a simple occasional cross border shopper. Are they allowed to do that, yep, and I can't do anything about it because they are within their mandate. Throw all the temper tantrums you want at the border it will only cause you more problems immediately and in future crossings.

Oh, and stop saying I want those search powers extended to cops inside the country. I DON'T. Everyday cops should have warrants issued by a judge for searches - right down to getting info from your ISP. Which is why I have a big problem with the cyberbullying bill the feds want to pass into law (but thats a topic for a different thread).