Like it aims to block all the other convicted criminals who apply for entry.
For both countries, pardons, commuted sentences, do not hide the transfer of information, and are meaningless. This is because each country only cares about the crime, and its own assessment of "should this person, with crime x, be allowed in".
Outside of that, a presidential commuted sentence, by its very nature, is political, not court based.
Lastly, each country puts the safety of its citizens, above the rights of foreigners to visit.
I wanted to reply with these points, before reading the article, as generic, non-case specific logic is important here.
I have no idea, after reading. I wish I knew if the delays were standard (eg, backlog), and so on.
I also wish I knew how others in this situation fare. As a Canuck, I want no special treatment for anyone, pro or against, but just the job done correctly, and that means fair, compared to how others are treated / the law.
Is her lawyer using the media / spinning things, to try to help the case? Maybe.
Not enough info for me to know wtf.
Which is not actually a right. Americans have no more a right to travel to Canada than Canadians have a right to come to the US. I venture that more canadians are probably denied entry to the US than Americans are denied by Canada.
It very much depends on who you ask. Some libertarians will say that it hasn't been that long the modern system has been in place. I think since roughly WWI?
The lack of a "right" to enter a country could be compared with the modern lack of a right for pedestrians to walk in middle of most streets. Now and then some people get quite bitter about that.
You don't know, though! I mean, not everybody gets angry that easy, but many are aware that you don't have to commit a crime or do something wrong to be barred from crossing an international border.
I remember an article by a woman who was turned back from Canada because she had antidepressant medication with her.
I mean, no need to debate it, who knows, but I think you're exaggerating your certainty. It's possible that this has an additional political dimension, even though similar things can happen without it.
How would people feel if someone convicted of insider trading, an arguably much more “victimless” crime than espionage, tried the same thing? I suspect the same people who argue for Manning to be admitted would argue against the hypothetical inside trader. The only just approach is to apply the standard fairly to all people.
Surely everybody agrees with that, for everything, except that it communicates absolutely nothing about what is fair and uniform.
I have no idea whether someone convicted of insider trading would be barred, or whether they should be, or whether the average person would want them to be.
It always strikes me as weird when someone gives an example of something that they assume everybody agrees on, and it is something that surely 99.99% of the world has never thought of even once.
Maybe the people to whom you refer just have different concerns about things which they see as different.
People see hypocrisy everywhere when they refuse to contextualize anything the same way as another person does.
It's a way of "laundering" prejudice as "logic".
How can you say I didn't justify a distinction when you compared her to "ordinary" ex-convicts, which sounds like non-celebrities?
The issue is not double standards, the issue is disagreement on what attributes are salient.
Just pretend the first two sentences of my previous comment aren't there. I don't care if you agree. The rest of it stands by itself. It's abstract and not related to these events.
Your original complaint was just "why do people only care about who they care about?" I wanted to communicate how tautological I found it.
Outside of that, a presidential commuted sentence, by its very nature, is political, not court based.
Lastly, each country puts the safety of its citizens, above the rights of foreigners to visit.
I am not a cheerleader for Chelsea Manning, who I have sympathy for in some respects but dislike in others.
Actually, Chelsea Manning has better odds of being let into Canada than a lot of "boring" people with felony convictions. And that's kind of a problem.
Canada does not popup that much in the international news. Maybe I missed a similar article on HN were the majority had the exact oposite reaction like in this one?
There’s not an immigration service in the world who wants to choose which felonies should be enforced on a case by case basis and generally not a populace who believes that fame should get you a golden ticket.
Would I personally let her in? Sure! If I ran an immigration department? Nope.
Apparently they share way more than criminal records.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/canadian-woman-refuse...
I suppose that saves the application for a waiver, and she can just appeal right away via federal courts?
1. On 2017-09-22, Ms. Manning attempted to enter Canada but was denied by the border guards. [0]
2. On or about On 2017-09-25, Ms. Manning received a letter from the Canadian government detailing why she was previously denied entry.
3. Ms. Manning and her lawyers files an appeal to the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board. A tribunal hearing is scheduled for 2021-10-07. Let's call this hearing "Hearing A".
4. While Hearing A was still pending, the Canadian government allowed Ms. Manning entry for a few days into Canada in 2018.
5. Both sides (the Canadian border official side and Ms. Manning's side) are able to argue their case before Hearing A. The title of this news story refers to the fact that the border official side plans to put forth an argument in Hearing A.
The fact that she was allowed despite rather well known criminal charges and jail time points to rather high likelyhood of her appeal being successful. I think that is highly unusual.
This is probably just a campaign to generate some favourable publicity.
Can anyone in the world file a case with the Canadian Supreme court and be heard? They would need to have some sort of legal standing to appear before the court.
Neither of these facts are exemptions that apply to anyone else entering Canada.