Canada is not exactly welcoming to visitor. Particularly visitors that may have a mark on their background check from any number of years ago. Good luck getting in at all -- its becoming a common mention in hip hop lyrics even.
Not a bug, working as intended. Entering a country that you aren't a citizen of isn't some inalienable human right, especially if you're a convicted criminal.
Well, yeah, entering the US as a non-citizen is a privilege granted at the discretion of the US federal government. Border control is an essential function of a sovereign state.
>I also find it a bit disturbing how easily you apply law & order in the name of a country that was not involved in deciding the validity of that decision or the circumstances behind it.
It's disturbing to not want criminal elements freely entering your country? If they're a not refugee and they can't follow the law in their country of origin, why should any other country be obligated to let them in?
I'm only a criminal to someone like you.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/innocen... https://abovethelaw.com/2018/11/plea-bargaining-a-necessary-...
What you are really saying is that you think countries have very good reasons to keep people that are not well off from entering. People that are well off would/do not have the same legal outcomes, and thus your measurement of law-abiding is not reasonable.
Well, yes. As far as immigration goes, the policy of most non-US western countries is primarily merit-based or if you have money to invest in the country. If you aren't educated and productive and you're not a legitimate refugee, why should a country let you in? How does the country benefit?
Canada has a generous welfare system and social safety net that that would likely be unsustainable if it let in sufficient number of people unable to support their own benefits. Even if you hold the view that drug use ought to be a public health matter and not a criminal matter, there's a limited amount of immigration that can be sustained without overburdening these services and why let in a drug user when you can let in a doctor or engineer?
In the case of tourism, it's just about limiting risk of someone overstaying their visa.
I make well into six figures as an engineer and cannot make legitimate business trips to Canada even when the company lawyer has appealed for my entry, complete with compiling a report with ample evidence of merit. It is a naive view to think that entry is merit based when I'm being denied entry based solely on the fact that I was once a teenager that was discovered to be around weed once.
> In the case of tourism, it's just about limiting risk of someone overstaying their visa.
Then why do so many performance artists have to cancel Canadian stops when they are not allowed entry? Are they really scared a platinum artist is going to become a drain on their society? That quite obviously has nothing to do with it.
Assuming by default that somebody would break the law, just because you politically disagree with them, is not justified. As said above, CC holders are among the most law-abiding citizens (this is true in my country too). They're aware of the laws governing their permit and assuming by default that they'd break other countries' laws is preposterous. You don't just forget that you're carrying when you travel abroad or by airplane. And you sure as hell don't do something as idiotic as that, with the accompanying consequences, intentionally.
As far as forgetting that you’re carrying, numerous examples say otherwise. Random data point: the TSA confiscated over 4,000 guns last year, of which I imagine approximately 100% were inadvertently packed by innocent people. Whether it’s intentional is immaterial; Canada doesn’t want guns crossing the border, and they couldn’t care less if you’re doing it by accident.
If the Canadian border authorities are searching your person, such that they are likely to notice something like a concealed carry permit, your border crossing has already gone south.