People giving up PR status due to eTAs

[Natan]

While it is a major inconvenience for PR's, it helps remove those who claimed to have PR status or knowingly have expired PR status from being able to re-enter Canada to re-established PR status. If one can't maintain PR RO rules to maintain PR status, then he/she can't keep PR status. Plain and simple.

PR status does not expire. If a PR arrives at a POE, even if they do not meet the residency requirement, CBSA is required to admit that person to Canada.

screech399, I'm afraid you'll have to find another reason to appreciate eTA and its inconvenience to PRs.

 

[screech339]

PR status does not expire. If a PR arrives at a POE, even if they do not meet the residency requirement, CBSA is required to admit that person to Canada.

screech399, I'm afraid you'll have to find another reason to appreciate eTA and its inconvenience to PRs.

Technically, your PR status expired when you failed PR RO. This is why eta is needed to force PRs that failed the PR RO to prove their PR status while outside Canada. If you have an expired PR card while outside Canada, apply for a PR travel document. If you cannot get it due to lack of PR RO, then it means you lost it.

 

[Natan]

Technically, your PR status expired when you failed PR RO.

Legally: PR status does not expire. ("Technically" is meaningless in this context.)

This is why eta is needed to force PRs that failed the PR RO to prove their PR status while outside Canada.

The eTA programme was developed to vet non-status persons flying to Canada in order to comply with "perimeter" agreements with the U.S. By definition, a Canadian Permanent Resident has status in Canada. The eTA programme does not address PRs, or any other person with status in Canada. The effects the eTA programme has on those with status in Canada is purely incidental (as is the rapturous joy eTA incites in screech339).

If you have an expired PR card while outside Canada, apply for a PR travel document. If you cannot get it due to lack of PR RO, then it means you lost it.

When a person makes application for a PR card renewal or a temporary travel document, IRCC may make a determination on whether the applicant has met the requirements of permanent residence. If IRCC determines that the PR has not met the requirements, they may terminate PR status. Should IRCC move to terminate PR status, the Permanent Resident will be notified of this fact (including why and how to redress).

PR status may only be terminated by the Permanent Resident or IRCC. It does not expire. It does not automatically terminate. One cannot "lose" it.

 

[screech339]

Legally: PR status does not expire. ("Technically" is meaningless in this context.)



The eTA programme was developed to vet non-status persons flying to Canada in order to comply with "perimeter" agreements with the U.S. By definition, a Canadian Permanent Resident has status in Canada. The eTA programme does not address PRs, or any other person with status in Canada. The effects the eTA programme has on those with status in Canada is purely incidental (as is the rapturous joy eTA incites in screech339).



When a person makes application for a PR card renewal or a temporary travel document, IRCC may make a determination on whether the applicant has met the requirements of permanent residence. If IRCC determines that the PR has not met the requirements, they may terminate PR status. Should IRCC move to terminate PR status, the Permanent Resident will be notified of this fact (including why and how to redress).

PR status may only be terminated by the Permanent Resident or IRCC. It does not expire. It does not automatically terminate. One cannot "lose" it.

It forces the PR to "established" PR status while outside Canada if one does not have a valid PR card. Getting a PRTD is easy as long as you met the RO. If you didn't, you will simply lose it. Plain and simple. While one doesn't "lose" it automatically, you are guaranteeing yourself to lose your PR status the longer you are outside Canada upon failing PR RO when you are forced to apply for PRTD to return.

Sure you can hold a PR status forever outside Canada with a Canadian spouse/common law or as long as you don't plan on returning to Canada ever if you failed RO. Holding a PR status with a fail RO outside Canada is completely meaningless if you are forced to stay outside Canada for good to "keep" it. The only people who wants to do this are people who failed PR RO and hope future government will repeal the eTA requirement.

 

[Natan]

It forces the PR to "established" PR status while outside Canada if one does not have a valid PR card. Getting a PRTD is easy as long as you met the RO. If you didn't, you will simply lose it. Plain and simple. While one doesn't "lose" it automatically, you are guaranteeing yourself to lose your PR status the longer you are outside Canada upon failing PR RO when you are forced to apply for PRTD to return.

This is misinformation. One cannot "lose" PR status. It is entirely possible that a permanent resident who does not meet the residency obligation will be issued a PRTD. Once a PR presents themselves at a Canadian port of entry, CBSA is required, by law, to admit that person to Canada, regardless of whether their PR card is valid or they have meet the residence obligation. (There are many ways a PR can arrive at a PoE, including by land, sea, private carrier, or even oversight by an airline.)

Holding a PR status with a fail RO outside Canada is completely meaningless if you are forced to stay outside Canada for good to "keep" it. The only people who wants to do this are people who failed PR RO and hope future government will repeal the eTA requirement.

A PR who has failed to meet the RO will be admitted to Canada if they present themselves at a PoE. CBSA is not required to refer to IRCC a PR who seems to fail to meet the RO (note that CBSA is not authorized to make a determination of the ongoing validity of PR status). If a PR who failed to meet the RO enters Canada and manages to meet the RO without IRCC being alerted, then the PR would no longer be at risk of having their PR terminated for not having met the residence obligation.

Holding PR status and failing to meet the RO is not meaningless. It remains meaningful, in that the person remains a permanent resident of Canada.

 

[screech339]

This is misinformation. One cannot "lose" PR status. It is entirely possible that a permanent resident who does not meet the residency obligation will be issued a PRTD. Once a PR presents themselves at a Canadian port of entry, CBSA is required, by law, to admit that person to Canada, regardless of whether their PR card is valid or they have meet the residence obligation. (There are many ways a PR can arrive at a PoE, including by land, sea, private carrier, or even oversight by an airline.)



A PR who has failed to meet the RO will be admitted to Canada if they present themselves at a PoE. CBSA is not required to refer to IRCC a PR who seems to fail to meet the RO (note that CBSA is not authorized to make a determination of the ongoing validity of PR status). If a PR who failed to meet the RO enters Canada and manages to meet the RO without IRCC being alerted, then the PR would no longer be at risk of having their PR terminated for not having met the residence obligation.

Holding PR status and failing to meet the RO is not meaningless. It remains meaningful, in that the person remains a permanent resident of Canada.

In other words, you support PR to keep their status knowing full well they failed their PR RO requirement, or that the RO rules shouldn't apply to PR anymore.

 

[itsmyid]

Is there a point to this argument? Yes if you fail your RO even if you still have your PR status it will be taken away eventually, and yes until that happens you are still a PR, you two have made it clear enough ....

 

[h3a3j6]

For me (a Canadian PR from a visa exempt country) this ETA is a deep shi... when I air travel to Canada.

For example - sometimes I can not check-in online (no queue, no wait). At the airport I can not check-in at the kiosk (no queue, no wait). I must check-in at a check-in counter (long queue, long wait) where often the person does not have the slightest idea how to enter the data from the PR card, and needs someone else for assistance (even longer wait). A big step back from the no hassle procedure in the past.

In summary procedure for PRs is cumbersome, inconvenient and time consuming. Similar to when I cross from the Canada to the USA on a land crossing with my EU passport.

While I can understand the "tactical" hassle you go through, I have to be honest and say that I would prefer that you go through it if it keeps our borders safer, and allows "genuine" PRs entry. After all, the US have an ESTA and I believe Europe is following this process pretty soon.

 

[spyfy]

In other words, you support PR to keep their status knowing full well they failed their PR RO requirement, or that the RO rules shouldn't apply to PR anymore.

No s/he is simply explaining the legal framework of PR status. Natan did not in any way take a personal stance in this but simply explained the facts. You are strawman-argumenting him/her pretty hard here.

 

[spyfy]

For me (a Canadian PR from a visa exempt country) this ETA is a deep shi... when I air travel to Canada.

For example - sometimes I can not check-in online (no queue, no wait). At the airport I can not check-in at the kiosk (no queue, no wait). I must check-in at a check-in counter (long queue, long wait) where often the person does not have the slightest idea how to enter the data from the PR card, and needs someone else for assistance (even longer wait). A big step back from the no hassle procedure in the past.

In summary procedure for PRs is cumbersome, inconvenient and time consuming. Similar to when I cross from the Canada to the USA on a land crossing with my EU passport.

The situation got a bit better recently, at least when you fly with Air Canada. In the first months of eTA requirement (November 2016) it was indeed a big hassle to check in for a flight. I was almost denied boarding despite having a valid PR card and showing it to the boarding agent. She was convinced that I needed an eTA and was completely ignorant of me telling her that I cannot even apply for an eTA as a PR.

But it got better. I recently took an AC flight from Paris to Toronto and both at the online checkin and then when printing my boarding pass at the machine at the airport was I simply asked for my PR card info (online) and asked to scan my PR card (at the machine) without any problems. Everything went smoothly. That wasn't the case when I flew with AC earlier this year (where I was held at the gate by the agent and they had to enter everything manually). So it seems that finally the airline IT is catching up. I'm not so confident about other airlines, though.

 

[spyfy]

While I can understand the "tactical" hassle you go through, I have to be honest and say that I would prefer that you go through it if it keeps our borders safer, and allows "genuine" PRs entry. After all, the US have an ESTA and I believe Europe is following this process pretty soon.

I just want to point out that the eTA, ESTA and soon-to-come EU programs do NOT make any of the affected countries safer. That is the narrative of the politicians introducing them. But in fact anyone who is now stopped from taking the flight by not getting an eTA when applying for it would have been stopped from entering Canada even without any eTA program in effect. They would have been stopped at the border checkpoint once they reach the Canadian Airport since they did the same automatic checks there that are now done online. So not a single additional person is kept from entering Canada now that the eTA is there. The only difference is that you are now stopped before boarding the flight instead of after landing.
In fact these programs have mostly two actual goals:
1. Saving the government money and hassle for organizing return flights for people whose entry was refused
2. It is a classic actionist policy of "we make our country safer" that is supposed to make people feel as if something is done to make the country safer.

In fact, Canada signed an agreement with the US to introduce an ESTA-like program many years ago (if they hadn't signed that agreement, the easy travel conditions for Canadians entering the States would have been at stake) although Canada didn't even want to introduce the program because its benefits are dubious. But in the end the US pressured them so much that they finally had to do it, although reluctantly.

 

[dpenabill]

While U.S. pressure played a big role, the IAPI program was conceived, designed, and was just short of being finally implemented (falling years behind schedule) by the Harper government, which was gung ho for more border controls and traveler screening. Indeed, the Conservatives oft repeated promises that the program (much broader than eTA or even the IAPI) would improve interdiction and enforcement of things like fraudulent collection of EI or health care benefits, as well as enhancing enforcement of the PR Residency Obligation. And the program probably has moved the needle some in this regard. Whether it has been enough to justify its costs seems quite doubtful.

Costs and inconvenience loomed as the major disincentives, with business and tourist related interests strongly opposed due to an anticipated repressive effect on travel to Canada. I have not seen the numbers lately, but as I recall it does appear these fears were well founded. There have been other events and circumstances, however, which also influence how much business and tourist travel there is to Canada (although the withered loonie has helped to offset some of the factors discouraging travel to Canada; some are recently forecasting the loonie is due for a big rebound).

However, with a few other exceptions, the EU seems to be an outlier in the trends. Border controls have increased way beyond what I might have imagined a couple decades ago, and there is little sign of any serious opposition to a trend in which these controls continue to increase throughout much if not most of the world.

While the big picture still reflects preferences and privileges which tend to be largely (not entirely, but largely) in favour of those who are Euro-Anglo nationals (thus the continuing high value of a Canadian passport), the trend is toward a future in which socio-economic factors, with much more emphasis on the economic side factors, will largely determine who enjoys preference and privilege. This includes who will find it easier to travel from country to country going forward.

I do not like the direction I see things going. But I'm at an age, and in a condition, where it is not likely I will experience much of the Brave New World looming on our horizon. Not really disappointed about this. But afraid for my grandchildren and, if and when there are any, my great grandchildren. Yours too. All of them.

 

[h3a3j6]

I just want to point out that the eTA, ESTA and soon-to-come EU programs do NOT make any of the affected countries safer. That is the narrative of the politicians introducing them. But in fact anyone who is now stopped from taking the flight by not getting an eTA when applying for it would have been stopped from entering Canada even without any eTA program in effect. They would have been stopped at the border checkpoint once they reach the Canadian Airport since they did the same automatic checks there that are now done online. So not a single additional person is kept from entering Canada now that the eTA is there. The only difference is that you are now stopped before boarding the flight instead of after landing.
In fact these programs have mostly two actual goals:
1. Saving the government money and hassle for organizing return flights for people whose entry was refused
2. It is a classic actionist policy of "we make our country safer" that is supposed to make people feel as if something is done to make the country safer.

I beg to differ. ESTA was mandated in the congressional recommendations of the post-9/11 commission act of 2007 (Check section 711 here).

I can think of several scenarios where ESTA may be useful. Take a plane hijacker for example who has circumvented a weak airport security. There may be other examples too...

 

[spyfy]

I beg to differ. ESTA was mandated in the congressional recommendations of the post-9/11 commission act of 2007 (Check section 711 here).

I can think of several scenarios where ESTA may be useful. Take a plane hijacker for example who has circumvented a weak airport security. There may be other examples too...

You are mixing up ESTA and the No Fly List. The latter exists independently from ESTA and includes nationals from any country (not just Visa Waiver Program countries, but all countries, including US nationals). That list is the mechanism that is supposed to prevent plane hijackers and other air traffic related security risks. It has nothing to do with ESTA.

ESTA on the other hand is supposed to mainly tackle two other issues:
(a) prevent immigration related issues (e.g. avoid that people overstay etc.)
(b) prevent security threats to the US after the traveler entered the US, e.g. drug trafficking, people returning to the US from a terrorist boot camp, organized crime, ...

These two items are checked for all Non-Visa-Waiver countries during the Visa application process and for the Visa-Waiver countries during ESTA.

But again, both (a) and (b) were achieved before as well, by doing the same automated checks once the traveler arrived at the US border. The only difference is that border services doesn't have to deal with the hassle to send people back if they are inadmissible.

The arguments apply analogously to Canada's eTA.

 

[Natan]

I beg to differ. ESTA was mandated in the congressional recommendations of the post-9/11 commission act of 2007 (Check section 711 here).

I can think of several scenarios where ESTA may be useful. Take a plane hijacker for example who has circumvented a weak airport security. There may be other examples too...

The fact is, the 9/11 hijackers had all been vetted by the U.S. Government. They all had valid visas and, therefore, would have been approved to board their flights under ESTA. Americans are NOT safer because of ESTA and TSA -- it's all security theatre to make Americans "feel" safe. I, for one, think all this "security" has been a complete overreaction to cover-up a complete failure to "respond" to the underlying reasons that gave rise to the current criminal threats that are so cavalierly described as "terrorism".

The greatest terrorist acts in history have overwhelmingly been committed by states, not private actors (using the definition of terrorism employed by the FBI, CIA and U.S. Dept. of State). Eliminating the ongoing terrorism perpetrated by states would largely undermine the rationale private actors have for committing acts cavalierly labelled "terrorist" by the very terrorism-committing-states guilty of real terrorism.