Entring Canada via US with an expired PR card

[armoured]

When airline sees your PR card and valid eTA application, it is no longer responsible for whatever your true status and entitlement to enter Canada is.

PR cardholders do not require and are not eligible to get ETAs - not just to board a plane, ever. The airlines will not ask for an ETA in addition to a PR card - because it's nonsense and contradictory - they are for different travellers.

 

[dpenabill]

Interesting, makes sense but at the same time is so stupid LoL

Thanks for explaining

The explanation referenced is largely nonsense. For example, there is no such thing as a "Canadian green card."

And as @armoured noted, there is no such thing as a Canadian PR having eTA.

Previous nonsense, same unreliable source, includes the statement that a "PR card is not a proof of PR status." On the contrary, it is explicitly the "status document" specified by IRPA (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act) Section 31(1) and IRPR (Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations) section 51(1), and is specifically recognized by both the Federal and Provincial governments as proof of PR status for various purposes, such as proof of status supporting an application for a SIN (Federal) and proof of status supporting an application for provincial health care coverage.

The notion that provincial rules requiring PRs to "produce PR card in lieu of [CoPR] is discriminatory, and thus can be contested in court of law," is ludicrous. While I have not verified that every province has rules requiring presentation of a PR card as proof of status, for purposes of qualifying for certain provincial benefits, but most for sure do. Some are more strict about this (like BC) than others (like Ontario, which allows the presentation of an expired PR card to support eligibility for OHIP), and there are usually some work-a-round options.

To be clear, the CoPR documents a PR's landing, and the acquisition of PR status. And ONLY that. It is nonetheless among the more important documents for a PR to safely retain, even though it does not evidence the person continues to have PR status. (I have a CoPR but I am not a Canadian PR. Still needed it when it came time to apply for OAS.)

Of course the possession of a PR card which is valid on its face does not guarantee the individual is not inadmissible, subject to a Removal Order, or in some cases illegally still in possession of an invalid PR card (still in possession of a previously issued PR card following adjudication terminating PR status). Thus, for example, Port-of-Entry computer systems routinely screen a PR's GCMS client records to verify the traveler applying for entry into Canada actually has valid PR status.

In contrast, a person outside Canada who does not present a valid PR card is "presumed not to have permanent resident status." IRPA section 31(2)(b)

And a note regarding claims that a rule or practice is "discriminatory," especially in regards to whether the fact that a rule or practice is "discriminatory" is a basis for contesting the rule or practice in a court of law. Virtually all rules and practices are "discriminatory," and are nonetheless valid and enforceable. That is typically their purpose, to discriminate, based on specified criteria. There are certain kinds of discrimination that are prohibited in Canada, and some types of discrimination allowed but subject to regulation or restriction; in particular, some are prohibited by the Charter of Rights, some by statute. Discrimination between those who can prove their PR status by presenting a status card, the PR card, and those who cannot, is nowhere near being a prohibited, unlawful, or legally unreasonable form of discrimination.

A somewhat obvious example: the rights protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights explicitly allows discrimination, that is "such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

Its interesting then why does this work for land border but not for commercial flights?

This was in reference (it appears) to rules requiring a PR to present a valid PR card or PR Travel Document to board commercial transportation headed to Canada, versus what documents are required to obtain entry at a Port-of-Entry. Note: same rules apply at any PoE, not just a land border PoE.

The difference is means of transportation to reach the PoE, as it is typically far easier, for most, to reach a land border crossings using private transportation. When a PR applies for entry into Canada (not authorization FOR entry, like an application for a visa, but authorization TO ENTER, which requires applying for entry at a PoE, an application made by simply showing up at the PoE), what matters is whether the person's identity and status is established, and no particular documentation is necessary. While that procedure (verifying status) goes a lot easier if the traveler has documentation like a PR card, including an expired PR card, or a CoPR, or at least documents corroborating identity and residence in Canada (provincial drivers license for example), just the person's passport will usually suffice, after some cross-checking, since status can be verified in the client's GCMS records.

In contrast, regulations governing commercial carriers require screening all passengers, to document they have authorization FOR entry into Canada (still subject to screening at the PoE and getting authorization TO ENTER) and those regulations explicitly specify what documents are necessary to show authorization FOR entry into Canada. Canadian citizens, for example, will only be approved to board a commercial flight to Canada if they present either a Canadian passport or a special Travel Document (thus, for example, a Canadian birth certificate is NOT sufficient). Similarly, Canadian PRs must present either a valid status document (PR card) or a PR Travel Document.

However, those regulations are complex with many wrinkles and exceptions. Which takes this back to the subject of this thread: there are particular regulatory provisions for U.S. citizens related to broader international policies and practices specifically applicable to the U.S. and Canada relationship, as our respective governments often emphasize is a "special" relationship. Thus, for example, Canadians (both PRs and citizens) who are also U.S. citizens will be approved to board commercial flights headed to Canada by presenting a U.S. passport, so do not need a Canadian status document or Canadian travel document.

So yeah, Canada discriminates against PRs who are not U.S. citizens. Unless you are prepared to pay everyone's legal fees, best to not try contesting this in a court of law.

 

[jakklondon]

Interesting, makes sense but at the same time is so stupid LoL

Thanks for explaining

These kind of things, like constant surveillance, restriction of movement, non-stop intelligence gathering on average Ivan and Alyona, intimidation, disregard for and systematic violation of individual rights, Kafkaesque denial of basic entitlements and services by insidious bureaucracy, multiple verifications of passports and other documents, were the signature mark of totalitarian regimes in the past, such as Communist regimes of the Warsaw Pact countries in the second half of XX century before the fall of Soviet Union. Highest point of absurdity were the Passports designed solely for internal identification and not international travel (ordinary citizens were not allowed to travel abroad). But they still called it pass-port, despite the fact that it was not a valid document to cross the border of the state, because you were considered to be passing from one jurisdiction to another when you were traveling from one point to another within the boundaries of the same state, and any law enforcement agent could demand that you produce it for inspection, even if you walked out of your house to buy a loaf of bread across the street. That was the degree of surveillance and totalitarian control they had.

For some mysterious reason, things that KGB used to do in USSR (read about Stasi in East Germany, their archives are declassified now) are now done in Western so called democracies by so called elected governments. That's not just stupid, that's something beyond conceivable. Why Western countries decided to follow the example of Communist countries in treatment of its' ordinary citizens and residents? This is doubly inconceivable when we consider historical lesson, which had shown that tyrannies fall. USSR with all super-surveilling and omnipotent KGB, fell. It fell because Western world it was rivaling at that time had shown the freer, better, safer and happier world, kind that everyone yearned to live in, including the people of the Warsaw pact countries. Tyrannies do not last long.

 

[jakklondon]

P.S. There are couple of clowns on this forum (which public forum doesn't have one?), who relentlessly keep annoying and attacking, by responding to almost every post I leave on this forum, by making comments mixed with usual doze of personal insults, derogatory insinuations and ad hominems, despite the fact that I placed them on my ignore list, stoically endured insults and never addressed or engaged with them directly (with may be two rare exceptions saved to my signature line as an example of the kind of members I would ignore in future). Ironically, none of these clowns have any legal background, nor do they have any clue about the basic application of law, the mechanism of law, separation of powers, traditions of Anglo-Saxon common law (US and Canada, both have its' laws rooted in it), principles of State and public interaction with government in Western societies (of which Canada is an integral part of). civil rights and rules applicable to law enforcement in the context of executing the will of the legislative branch (which does not allow executive branch to arbitrarily take matters into into its' own hands and decide what the intent and letter of law should be). Yet they talk and pontificate as if they were some kind of Grand Poohbahs and supreme experts of Canadian immigration laws. Perhaps my disengagement fuels their fans and makes them come back with even greater self-assuredness It is really childish , unbecoming of adults behavior, which could be explained by following: one of the clowns being perhaps too young and inexperienced in life, and the other being aged 100 years in solitude and driven to delusion by inescapable and unbearable boredom. Anywho...
At last they found one blip to hang a hat on, "Hey Everyone! Behold! Canadian PR does not require eTA, they require only PR card, look, what a fatal error of mind and character!" Never mind that poster above I was responding to was asking why PR with valid status (but without valid PR card) was entitled to all benefits that other PRs are entitled to throughout provinces of Canada (such as health care benefit or driver's license), while not being able to land in a seat in the commercial airplane headed to Canada as other PRs with valid cards can.

These two clowns remind me of scribes and Pharisees, who would ignore the essence and crux of the idea being conveyed (because they were impotent and unable to fundamentally attack and argue on merits against what was essential) , and would instead charge their opponents for not putting dots and commas in the right places, as if such omission of largely irrelevant detail would defeat the purpose or the essence of what was actually relayed