Comment by 2skep | Hacker News Reader

Comment by 2skep | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Enough has been said about bad treatment by border guards about every country on earth so don't need to repeat it but I had the following exchange with a Canadian visa officer.

Visa Officer:Your Name? How can I help you Me: Dr XYZ. I would like to apply for a visitor visa to Canada Visa Officer: Why would you like to go to Canada Me: I have been invited to speak at a conference Visa Officer: Hmm I see. Me: Is there a problem? Visa Officer: You see, you are not allowed to do public speaking on a visitor visa. You will have to apply a visa for public speaking which takes longer and requires additional formalities and checks. Me: Oh, I see. I am surprised that is the case, I go around the world to conferences and it seems unusual in Canada. Visa Officer: Can I ask you a question Me: Sure Visa Officer (with a smile): Would you say that your main purpose of applying the visa is to attend the conference and you will be sharing your professional and not political views. Me: Yes. Absolutely! Visa Officer: You should then get a visitor visa which will be ready tomorrow after 4. Remember, when asked say that you are attending the conference. Enjoy Canada

As a rule answers have to be as general as possible. The more specific information you give them voluntarily, the more they can find something to latch on and make your life miserable.

Leave it up to them to ask more details. I wasn't a speaker at my last conference, but I could have been. But my conversation at the border was something like: "Why are you visiting Canada?" / "To go to a conference" / "Where is the conference?" / "Downtown" / "How long will you stay?" / "3 days" / "Ok, welcome to Canada".

Good answers. If you're ever going to an "unconference", don't say that!

When US CBP asked if I was "presenting, or attending", I did NOT take the opportunity to explain that everyone was expected to participate and present :)

The only problem is that while this is fantastic advice, it just means that the people who are going to be abused in the systems are the ones who haven't gotten the message, or otherwise struggle to implement it.

It's sort of a rule of bureaucracy that those who take an effort to be as accurate as possible will hit invisible edges and be scrutinized - those who don't will just sail smoothly or simply fall through the net.

I know that b/c my lifestyle is sometimes "unusual" while at the same time I have a strong inherent tendency to be very correct and "overly" honest. :D

I had exactly this last week in Vancouver, very swift given how long the queue was (British citizen if that helps).

"Why are you visiting Canada?"

"I"m here for a conference"

"What's the conference about?"

"Computer vision, you know, programming research"

"How long are you staying?"

"A week"

Stamp

There was a point on the outbound journey where they were checking everyone's passports by the scanner (i.e. you'd go through and everyone would set the alarm off, but it seemed to be a passport check rather than anything else), as soon as they saw it was British they lost interest.

> British citizen if that helps

It does, the lineups at Toronto's Pearson Int'l airport are longer for Canadians in my experience.

> As a rule answers have to be as general as possible. The more specific information you give them voluntarily, the more they can find something to latch on and make your life miserable.

This is very good advice, anyone prepping for depositions would have heard it already but it works very well for border personnel too.

"Why are you visiting Canada?"

"On vacation."

Done.

About sixteen years ago (I remember, because it was back before 9/11, when you could go to Canada without a passport) I got bored one weekend and drove up to Vancouver by myself. I got to the border, and answered the standard questions like "who do you know here" and "is this your car". Then the border agent asked me the purpose of my visit, and I said "uhhhh, tourism, ha ha". They let me in about an hour later after the car search and police background check came up clean. I guess the moral of the story is come prepared and try to be convincing, because they can screw you over on a whim.

On the other hand, I've gotten across with no delay at all by saying "I'm picking up a friend at the Vancouver airport" and "I'm going to go buy this drill press off of Craigslist -- see this printout?" Neither of those is illegal, and in neither case can they expect you to have hotel reservations or know any Canadians, etc.

> I guess the moral of the story is come prepared and try to be convincing, because they can screw you over on a whim.

One of my favourite parts about driving to the border is going through scenarios with my passengers, and how to answer each question.

I know someone (US citizen) who did this exact thing for a work trip to Vancouver and was denied because he got himself into a trap trying to explain what he would be doing.

Honesty might get you in trouble, but thats still probably a better place to be than trying to lie your way out

As a rule answers have to be as general as possible.

So, sort of the same strategy used for patent claims?

This is quite clear - in pretty much all first world countries, coming in to do some task and get paid for it is a huge red flag, it's "an immigrant asking for permit to work" for which the official process is slow and designed to deny most cases, and the main job of immigration officers essentially is trying to catch people who do the same on the standard "just come visit us" tourist visa.

The thing is, these laws are not meant to apply to "you", and the enforcement officers understand that - these laws are designed for people from lower-income countries seeking prolonged employment, i.e., economic migration; not first-world travelers that happen to earn some money while on the trip - the immigration officers entire reason of existence is to detect and prevent the former, while the latter doesn't matter, so they understand all the factors but since it's hard to draw an exact line, these laws do apply to e.g. conference speakers as well, and if you explicitly disclose to them that yes, you intend to do some paid job during your trip, then they pretty much have to deport you, and it's much harder for them to turn a blind eye and follow just the intent/goal of that law.

I don't like the laws that stops people from moving around, but if it's written in law, it's not meant to be creatively interpreted like it does not apply to you if you are from a first world country.

Interesting perspective.

I wonder if the immigration officers described here actually thought they were being fair, because they were applying the law as written to a white American, even though the law was not written to keep out white Americans.

Which is to say, we can be horrified by the attitudes of the officers, but it's the law that needs to be changed, not their attitudes.

Canadian border guards are the best.

I remember once we were traveling by road to Waterloo, to meet some buddies. We picked up those 1.5L bottles of booze, one each. That's 6L of booze in the car. At the Buffalo border, the dialog went like this:

Guard: where are you going?

We: Niagara Falls, just for the evening (we were afraid that they might now allow us in if we admitted to partying in Waterloo)

Guard: are you bringing in anything?

We: This booze.

Guard: As a gift for someone?

We: No, just for ourselves.

Guard: (incredulously) You'll drink that by yourselves?

We: Yes.

Guard: (rolls eyes) OK, come on in.

Now that we're telling stories:

I was flying home from England to Sweden and going through the inspection before departure. The guy checking me could tell that I was upset about it all, having to remove my belt and maybe even my shoes. When we were done, he had the greatest line: "Thank you for your cooperation, from Mr. Obama."

You know, I flew from Barcelona to Stockholm and I have to say, not having anything to do with US/UK borders was a phenomenally pleasant experience.

But that's like a domestic flight, because both are part of the Schengen Agreement?

The point is that both the United States and the United Kingdom are using their borders as processing centers. They are using their travel hubs as surveillance machines. That's what makes travelling through them suck. My personal theory is that the belt and shoes come off not because it actually stops people from bringing bombs onto airplanes, but because it gives the security apparatus extra processing time while the targets are still on-site.

I'm surprised when people are working (ie presenting at a conference) they think a non-working visa is OK.

We all play the game, but to not know the game is surprising. Hack the system, sure. But know you are hacking at least.

(I'm assuming OPs presentation was work related)

On the other hand, most of my worst experiences with border agents were in Canadian airports. YMMV.

Are you Canadian? I think they bother the Canadians more.

Nope. US citizen, but used to work for a company that had offices in Canada, and over a couple-year period also went to three tech-related conferences held in Canada, so I got a pretty significant dose of CBSA's loving embrace.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com