Letters of consent and travelling with children
May 29th 2014, 2:04 am
#91
Born again atheist
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: Europe (to be specified).
Posts: 30,259
Re: Letters of consent and travelling with children
Ultimately what we come to is noble cause corruption, the end justifying the means, this is the basis of all your arguments. When you enter this realm you risk losing all your moral and ethical reasoning. Do we torture confessions out of people? Do we imprison people indefinitely without charge or reason? What is that saying... when they came for my neighbor I did nothing, etc, and then they came for me. No thanks. Don't want to police like that or live like that.
Respect rae, we had some rather extreme disagreements some time ago, but you're right on there.
May 29th 2014, 2:15 am
#92
Settled.
Joined: Jul 2006
Location: St. Albert. AB.
Posts: 3,286
Re: Letters of consent and travelling with children
Hi, sorry if I ever caused offence, not my intent, I would like to think I always respect others opinions even though I may argue vociferously against them sometimes. That said though I think I have been a knob in the past when you were probably right.
May 29th 2014, 2:19 am
#93
Born again atheist
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: Europe (to be specified).
Posts: 30,259
Re: Letters of consent and travelling with children
Pax vobiscum.
May 29th 2014, 2:24 am
#94
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2011
Location: Somewhere between Vancouver & St Johns
Posts: 19,851
Re: Letters of consent and travelling with children
That as may be, whether you like it or not we don't have to answer your questions when you have no grounds to question us. Why is this so difficult to understand. We are perfectly within our rights to challenge you when you are acting well outside your purview. This is the difference between a democratic and police state.
Obligation — answer truthfully
16. (1) A person who makes an application must answer truthfully all questions put to them for the purpose of the examination and must produce a visa and all relevant evidence and documents that the officer reasonably requires.
Marginal note:Obligation — appear for examination
(1.1) A person who makes an application must, on request of an officer, appear for an examination.
Marginal note:Obligation — relevant evidence
(2) In the case of a foreign national,
(a) the relevant evidence referred to in subsection (1) includes photographic and fingerprint evidence; and
(b) subject to the regulations, the foreign national must submit to a medical examination.
or this one in extreme cases which occurs quite a bit at Pearson & Vancouver
Designation — human smuggling or other irregular arrival
20.1 (1) The Minister may, by order, having regard to the public interest, designate as an irregular arrival the arrival in Canada of a group of persons if he or she
(a) is of the opinion that examinations of the persons in the group, particularly for the purpose of establishing identity or determining inadmissibility — and any investigations concerning persons in the group — cannot be conducted in a timely manner; or
(b) has reasonable grounds to suspect that, in relation to the arrival in Canada of the group, there has been, or will be, a contravention of subsection 117(1) for profit, or for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization or terrorist group.
Marginal note:Effect of designation
(2) When a designation is made under subsection (1), a foreign national — other than a foreign national referred to in section 19 — who is part of the group whose arrival is the subject of the designation becomes a designated foreign national unless, on arrival, they hold the visa or other document required under the regulations and, on examination, the officer is satisfied that they are not inadmissible.
May 29th 2014, 2:32 am
#95
Settled.
Joined: Jul 2006
Location: St. Albert. AB.
Posts: 3,286
Re: Letters of consent and travelling with children
If you are a Canadian Citizen, PR or Status Indian I will agree but if a Foreign National then we have as they have no right of entry into Canada and this section of IRPA comes into play
Obligation — answer truthfully
16. (1) A person who makes an application must answer truthfully all questions put to them for the purpose of the examination and must produce a visa and all relevant evidence and documents that the officer reasonably requires.
Marginal note:Obligation — appear for examination
(1.1) A person who makes an application must, on request of an officer, appear for an examination.
Marginal note:Obligation — relevant evidence
(2) In the case of a foreign national,
(a) the relevant evidence referred to in subsection (1) includes photographic and fingerprint evidence; and
(b) subject to the regulations, the foreign national must submit to a medical examination.
or this one in extreme cases which occurs quite a bit at Pearson & Vancouver
Designation — human smuggling or other irregular arrival
20.1 (1) The Minister may, by order, having regard to the public interest, designate as an irregular arrival the arrival in Canada of a group of persons if he or she
(a) is of the opinion that examinations of the persons in the group, particularly for the purpose of establishing identity or determining inadmissibility — and any investigations concerning persons in the group — cannot be conducted in a timely manner; or
(b) has reasonable grounds to suspect that, in relation to the arrival in Canada of the group, there has been, or will be, a contravention of subsection 117(1) for profit, or for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization or terrorist group.
Marginal note:Effect of designation
(2) When a designation is made under subsection (1), a foreign national — other than a foreign national referred to in section 19 — who is part of the group whose arrival is the subject of the designation becomes a designated foreign national unless, on arrival, they hold the visa or other document required under the regulations and, on examination, the officer is satisfied that they are not inadmissible.
Obligation — answer truthfully
16. (1) A person who makes an application must answer truthfully all questions put to them for the purpose of the examination and must produce a visa and all relevant evidence and documents that the officer reasonably requires.
Marginal note:Obligation — appear for examination
(1.1) A person who makes an application must, on request of an officer, appear for an examination.
Marginal note:Obligation — relevant evidence
(2) In the case of a foreign national,
(a) the relevant evidence referred to in subsection (1) includes photographic and fingerprint evidence; and
(b) subject to the regulations, the foreign national must submit to a medical examination.
or this one in extreme cases which occurs quite a bit at Pearson & Vancouver
Designation — human smuggling or other irregular arrival
20.1 (1) The Minister may, by order, having regard to the public interest, designate as an irregular arrival the arrival in Canada of a group of persons if he or she
(a) is of the opinion that examinations of the persons in the group, particularly for the purpose of establishing identity or determining inadmissibility — and any investigations concerning persons in the group — cannot be conducted in a timely manner; or
(b) has reasonable grounds to suspect that, in relation to the arrival in Canada of the group, there has been, or will be, a contravention of subsection 117(1) for profit, or for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization or terrorist group.
Marginal note:Effect of designation
(2) When a designation is made under subsection (1), a foreign national — other than a foreign national referred to in section 19 — who is part of the group whose arrival is the subject of the designation becomes a designated foreign national unless, on arrival, they hold the visa or other document required under the regulations and, on examination, the officer is satisfied that they are not inadmissible.
May 29th 2014, 2:38 am
#96
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2011
Location: Somewhere between Vancouver & St Johns
Posts: 19,851
Re: Letters of consent and travelling with children
Other irregular arrival which can incorporate child abduction plus linked with section 16(1) then add in section 495(1) of the CCC and I think we have enough.
May 29th 2014, 2:56 am
#97
Settled.
Joined: Jul 2006
Location: St. Albert. AB.
Posts: 3,286
Re: Letters of consent and travelling with children
Yep I am sure when you include all that for foreign nationals you would be fine. Not what was posted originally or since though with regard to bending rules, making it fit, doing whatever needed doing legislation notwithstanding, ends justifying means etc.
May 29th 2014, 10:01 am
#98
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2011
Location: Somewhere between Vancouver & St Johns
Posts: 19,851
Re: Letters of consent and travelling with children
As for bending rules or making it fit or whatever I think that is a very subjective area and would only be done in extreme cases. If I knew the local police had been contacted and would be attending in 5 to 10 minutes in a case involving a CC or PR then sending you to Customs Secondary for a very slow baggage search would achieve that objective which in itself is perfectly legal but the reasons for it might be questioned.
May 29th 2014, 1:01 pm
#99
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Sep 2013
Location: SW Ontario, Canada
Posts: 6,960
Re: Letters of consent and travelling with children
That as may be, whether you like it or not we don't have to answer your questions when you have no grounds to question us. Why is this so difficult to understand. We are perfectly within our rights to challenge you when you are acting well outside your purview. This is the difference between a democratic and police state.
But, if you do that, and you aren't a Canadian citizen or PR, you may very well be denied entry/deported!
Not saying its right, just saying how it is.Actually, in the US you can be charged for challenging a CBP officer. Its apparently a felony, which is absurd, but I don't put it past them... The US isn't exactly a "democratic" state IMO compared to Canada and alot of the EU countries... Its more of a cross between "democratic" and "police" state
May 29th 2014, 3:07 pm
#100
Settled.
Joined: Jul 2006
Location: St. Albert. AB.
Posts: 3,286
Re: Letters of consent and travelling with children
But, if you do that, and you aren't a Canadian citizen or PR, you may very well be denied entry/deported! Not saying its right, just saying how it is.
Actually, in the US you can be charged for challenging a CBP officer. Its apparently a felony, which is absurd, but I don't put it past them... The US isn't exactly a "democratic" state IMO compared to Canada and alot of the EU countries... Its more of a cross between "democratic" and "police" state
Not saying its right, just saying how it is.Actually, in the US you can be charged for challenging a CBP officer. Its apparently a felony, which is absurd, but I don't put it past them... The US isn't exactly a "democratic" state IMO compared to Canada and alot of the EU countries... Its more of a cross between "democratic" and "police" state
I think my point is clear, I am obviously doing a poor job of explaining it though. This is probably another bad example but here goes. It is like the old 'sus law' in the UK. People were stopped and questioned and searched for no reason. Well that is not true actually thinking about it, they were stopped and questioned because they were black. So new rules requiring actually having some grounds to stop and search before doing this were brought in. This is still being abused though from what I understand.
At the airport you still have this old situation. Someone looks a bit dodgy so they get stopped. A dad on his own with his kid MUST be abducting them of course, so they get asked for a letter, which they don't need, and when they don't have one they come under more suspicion and more questioning which is all COMPLETELY BASELESS.
Now, if there is legislation which states I need to prove in someone way I have permission to travel, no problem. If there is a statute that states the CBSA officer has a right to demand this letter or other documentation from me just because I am traveling, no suspicion, no cause, no nothing, then fine. But at the moment there is not and no amount of grey area/bending the rules/doing it for the right reasons/making it fit/using other powers argument will alter this.
May 29th 2014, 3:10 pm
#101
Settled.
Joined: Jul 2006
Location: St. Albert. AB.
Posts: 3,286
Re: Letters of consent and travelling with children
The original post didn't specifically mention status of person i.e. citizen PR or foreign national. It was meant to make posters aware of travelling with kids and if not travelling with sufficient documentation or getting a letter of consent to help should they be questioned at the border. I even stated in the 1st post it wasn't a legal requirement to have such a letter.
As for bending rules or making it fit or whatever I think that is a very subjective area and would only be done in extreme cases. If I knew the local police had been contacted and would be attending in 5 to 10 minutes in a case involving a CC or PR then sending you to Customs Secondary for a very slow baggage search would achieve that objective which in itself is perfectly legal but the reasons for it might be questioned.
As for bending rules or making it fit or whatever I think that is a very subjective area and would only be done in extreme cases. If I knew the local police had been contacted and would be attending in 5 to 10 minutes in a case involving a CC or PR then sending you to Customs Secondary for a very slow baggage search would achieve that objective which in itself is perfectly legal but the reasons for it might be questioned.
But bending/breaking the rules is not subjective. You either have rules then breaking them is wrong, or otherwise call them guidelines subject to interpretation, then do as you see fit as the situation demands, this would be subjective.
May 30th 2014, 1:33 am
#102
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Sep 2013
Location: SW Ontario, Canada
Posts: 6,960
Re: Letters of consent and travelling with children
I agree, this is why I find this whole situation so annoying. What happens is peoples fears of not being allowed to fly or enter or leave or whatever, are preyed upon in order to question when there is no lawful authority.
I think my point is clear, I am obviously doing a poor job of explaining it though. This is probably another bad example but here goes. It is like the old 'sus law' in the UK. People were stopped and questioned and searched for no reason. Well that is not true actually thinking about it, they were stopped and questioned because they were black. So new rules requiring actually having some grounds to stop and search before doing this were brought in. This is still being abused though from what I understand.
At the airport you still have this old situation. Someone looks a bit dodgy so they get stopped. A dad on his own with his kid MUST be abducting them of course, so they get asked for a letter, which they don't need, and when they don't have one they come under more suspicion and more questioning which is all COMPLETELY BASELESS.
Now, if there is legislation which states I need to prove in someone way I have permission to travel, no problem. If there is a statute that states the CBSA officer has a right to demand this letter or other documentation from me just because I am traveling, no suspicion, no cause, no nothing, then fine. But at the moment there is not and no amount of grey area/bending the rules/doing it for the right reasons/making it fit/using other powers argument will alter this.
I think my point is clear, I am obviously doing a poor job of explaining it though. This is probably another bad example but here goes. It is like the old 'sus law' in the UK. People were stopped and questioned and searched for no reason. Well that is not true actually thinking about it, they were stopped and questioned because they were black. So new rules requiring actually having some grounds to stop and search before doing this were brought in. This is still being abused though from what I understand.
At the airport you still have this old situation. Someone looks a bit dodgy so they get stopped. A dad on his own with his kid MUST be abducting them of course, so they get asked for a letter, which they don't need, and when they don't have one they come under more suspicion and more questioning which is all COMPLETELY BASELESS.
Now, if there is legislation which states I need to prove in someone way I have permission to travel, no problem. If there is a statute that states the CBSA officer has a right to demand this letter or other documentation from me just because I am traveling, no suspicion, no cause, no nothing, then fine. But at the moment there is not and no amount of grey area/bending the rules/doing it for the right reasons/making it fit/using other powers argument will alter this.
I respect FL and other border guards for keeping nasties out of our country, but any officer of any sort should only be acting in respect to what they laws state, without bending the rules at all.
Heres a good one:
What happens if the allegedly 'abducting' mum/dad of the kid is not a Canadian citizen/PR/Status indian, and the child is? You technically can't deport the child because they have the right of abode in Canada, but you can deport the mum/dad because they have no status other than temporary/visitor in Canada. What happens?
