Toronto Star Article - why it is important to "just visit"

[commonlawsponsor]

http://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2014/10/10/i_just_want_to_go_home_hungarian_visitor_stuck_in_immigration_detention_tells_the_star.html

 

[gsize]

why am I not surprised ? I resent having my tax dollars wasted on this mess. Just send him back home !!!!!!!
why all the delays, I don't get it ?

Just wondering how many have similar experiences but don't make it to 'The Star"

Very sad to treat people this way....we can do better !

 

[Rob_TO]

why am I not surprised ? I resent having my tax dollars wasted on this mess. Just send him back home !!!!!!!
why all the delays, I don't get it ?

Just wondering how many have similar experiences but don't make it to 'The Star"

Very sad to treat people this way....we can do better !

The traveler had the chance to simply go home on the next flight, however he declined this option and chose to challenge the inadmissibility matter further through a court hearing which started the whole court/bureaucratic process. Also he flat out lied to CBSA to begin with.

Sometimes people need to take responsibility for their actions.

Also this is no excuse for visitors to lie to CBSA about their intentions in Canada. The article doesn't explain what the finances were of the traveler or the Canadian he wanted to marry. If he had no money with him, and the Canadian had minimal or no income or was on social assistance, then it was justified for CBSA to reject him. However in practically all cases, CBSA doesn't care if you are coming to Canada to get married, as long as you convince them that you can support yourself financially while here.
This article is actually very badly written and leaves out too many details.

 

[mcbeth]

It seems everyone wants to tar and feather the CBSA since a Mexican woman killed herself in their custody here in BC last year. She too lied, and was here illegally, but somehow CBSA is being blamed for her suicide. This article just reads like an extension of neener neener neener against the CBSA. They wouldn't be detaining him if there wasn't a reason, why isn't this detailed in the article?

 

[truesmile]

Journalism at it's best. Let's see . . . how can we "not" specifically lie and misrepresent this story the best way possible? I think their final is based on their sole ability to do this very thing. (and they're university grads . . . Pfft!)

 

[hkalltheway]

The folks at CBSA aren't that bad...they only become bad if you are dishonest...When I "re-located" back to Canada in 2012, I was absent from Canada for almost four years out of five. I was not meeting my residency requirement as a PR; the agent asked how long I was gone, and I was totally honest; my new-born son had passed away overseas a year before re-entering Canada, and that threw off our plans of relocating. The agent sympathized.

In addition, I was travelling with my wife and son who had single entry visit visas. He asked what my intentions were, and if I intended to sponsor them. I advised that yes, I do intend to sponsor them from within Canada. He said that they will be required to leave if I do not file a sponsorship application, or if for any reason, the application gets rejected. I acknowledged and confirmed that they have the intention to be sponsored, but also intend to leave if things do not work out. The agent had absolutely no problems, and I felt he appreciated the honesty. He was very kind, efficient, and greeted us with a smile.

The only cases I have seen where there is trouble is if you lie to them. If you tell the truth about your intentions, they are generally quite good.

 

[scylla]

The traveler had the chance to simply go home on the next flight, however he declined this option and chose to challenge the inadmissibility matter further through a court hearing which started the whole court/bureaucratic process. Also he flat out lied to CBSA to begin with.

Exactly. It's entirely his fault he is still there.

No sympathy from me...

 

[keesio]

CBSA tends to be more lenient than strict. Look at all the PRs who are able to enter into Canada despite not meeting RO and admitting so to CBSA officers. As long as you are honest and the offense is not serious, they usually give you slack.

 

[screech339]

CBSA tends to be more lenient than strict. Look at all the PRs who are able to enter into Canada despite not meeting RO and admitting so to CBSA officers. As long as you are honest and the offense is not serious, they usually give you slack.

To be honest CBSA agents shouldn't be giving much slack to PR who haven't meet the RO requirements. If a PR wants to take chances in maxing out their time outside Canada, that's their business. However don't come complaining if life throws you a curve ball at the last moment to screw up your RO requirement.

I have no sympathy to those who continue to max out their time outside Canada only to fail the RO at the end. To me these PRs are abusing their time, even though still legal to do, spent outside Canada.

CBSA should be reporting all PRs who missed their RO. If the PR actually have an legitimate reason to fail their RO then they have nothing to worry about. Show up at the appointment and explain your reason.

PRs who wants to work or study outside Canada that require them to miss their Canada RO should not have the luxury to be able to re-enter Canada because working or studying outside Canada is more important than maintaining their PR status.

Screech339

 

[screech339]

The Star is known for publishing anything that will make the CBSA / CIC look bad especially if the Federal government is PC. If the current Fed was a Liberal, the star would report stuff that CBSA look great, thus implying the liberal government was a better choice.

 

[keesio]

Well most on this forum would rage on CIC/CBSA regardless of who formed the government. But really when you look at it, CIC and CBSA has some of the most relaxed rules around for a developed country. Yeah there are a few things that are just wrong but for the most part they let things slide more often than not. You would never know it on these forums however.

 

[truesmile]

To be honest CBSA agents shouldn't be giving much slack to PR who haven't meet the RO requirements. If a PR wants to take chances in maxing out their time outside Canada, that's their business. However don't come complaining if life throws you a curve ball at the last moment to screw up your RO requirement.

I have no sympathy to those who continue to max out their time outside Canada only to fail the RO at the end. To me these PRs are abusing their time, even though still legal to do, spent outside Canada.

CBSA should be reporting all PRs who missed their RO. If the PR actually have an legitimate reason to fail their RO then they have nothing to worry about. Show up at the appointment and explain your reason.

PRs who wants to work or study outside Canada that require them to miss their Canada RO should not have the luxury to be able to re-enter Canada because working or studying outside Canada is more important than maintaining their PR status.

Screech339

I would agree 100%, but consider this scenario:
I'm with my wife in Philippines for 6 months, but she stays for 7. The first six months count towards PR, the last does not. The CBSA is supposed to count days how? Without access to the stamps in my passport, he can't. He has to take her word for it. So if your PR card is valid, they let you in, and your number of days is evaluated when you set about to renew your card.

 

[screech339]

Well most on this forum would rage on CIC/CBSA regardless of who formed the government. But really when you look at it, CIC and CBSA has some of the most relaxed rules around for a developed country. Yeah there are a few things that are just wrong but for the most part they let things slide more often than not. You would never know it on these forums however.

I agree. No matter who's in government, CBSA and CiC will always get the flack from media. It's the Star if it's a PC government, it's the SUN if it's the liberal government.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

I would agree 100%, but consider this scenario:
I'm with my wife in Philippines for 6 months, but she stays for 7. The first six months count towards PR, the last does not. The CBSA is supposed to count days how? Without access to the stamps in my passport, he can't. He has to take her word for it. So if your PR card is valid, they let you in, and your number of days is evaluated when you set about to renew your card.

The onus is on the PR to prove they meet the RO. In that particular scenario, she should have copies of your passport/stamps/plane tickets/other proofs to show if asked.

 

[Rob_TO]

The onus is on the PR to prove they meet the RO. In that particular scenario, she should have copies of your passport/stamps/plane tickets/other proofs to show if asked.

Right, it's not CBSA's job to determine the final outcome here. Even if they slightly suspect someone doesn't meet RO simply by asking a few questions, and the traveler has not brought suitable proofs to show otherwise, they should report them and let CIC sort it out at the RO hearing.