>Canada is not exactly welcoming to visitor. Particularly visitors that may have a mark on their background check from any number of years ago.
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.
By that same token there is no reason to complain about how difficult it can be to enter the U.S. for certain individuals -- or working as intended as you call it. 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.
>By that same token there is no reason to complain about how difficult it can be to enter the U.S. for certain individuals
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?
Let me put things into perspective for you. Cops raided the wrong house (battering ram and everything) which happened to be where I lived. They ripped up floor boards and broken holes in the wall -- they found $300 worth of personal weed. So they confiscated everything I own because it could possibly be related to drug money. I'm also incarcerated without the ability to post bail (because cops just took everything). I wasn't granted personal recognizance bond, it was $50,000 -- my family takes this as a sign that I must be guilty of whatever they say so I have no access to money for bail or for a lawyer. So I did my own case work while I sat in jail for 3 months, got a different judge to finally give me a personal recognizance bond, pick apart the prosecutor and detective at later hearings/motions, and finally leading up to the day before a jury trial (for two felony charges). I was offered a better plea and took it -- everything leading up to this point was so fucking asinine that despite all the headway I made I could not trust I would not spend years in prison. Its quite clear they did not want to look like idiots after getting a warrant and executing it in force based entirely on some 17 year old kid told them while being interrogated himself.
You can't plead guilty to (what sounds like) a trafficking charge and then claim to be innocent and expect to be freely admitted to other countries. Canada has no way of knowing you're innocent so your logic is that they should just let you in anyways? I think countries have very good reasons to keep people with drug convictions from entering regardless of whether or not you believe drugs should be decriminalized or legal.
> I think countries have very good reasons to keep people with drug convictions from entering regardless of whether or not you believe drugs should be decriminalized or legal.
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.
>What you are really saying is that you think countries have very good reasons to keep people that are not well off from entering.
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.
> 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?
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.
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.