|
Re: Questioning At The Canada/US Border...
Originally Posted by JCraigFong
(Post 8891499)
The patterns tell us that our experiences are real, despite what the regulations and law say. One of the hardest parts of immigration law practice is knowing when to rely on the law and when to rely on experience.
|
Re: Questioning At The Canada/US Border...
In a number of trips over the last 18 months there's been no stand-out memories. Sometimes I was asked a few more questions than others. The longest questioning was when my young daughter was in a paddy in the back and the questions were to her, clearly to make sure that everything was in order and I wasn't up to bad things!
I'm heading across to Canada this week, there and back on Thursday for a business meeting. If there's anything special in the anecdotal arena to add to this thread I'll add it. Otherwise assume it was the usual non-event or I'm locked away and unable to get online :p |
Re: Questioning At The Canada/US Border...
Originally Posted by meauxna
(Post 8891530)
Wow, I like that. :)
And when I say, "you can't do that," they get upset. Their EXPERIENCE tells them that it is supposed to be possible. *I* have to tell them that the law does not provide for this. On the other hand, someone may say, "the regulations say that you can do such-and-such," but I *know* that in practice, it won't happen. Again, I have to be the bad guy, saying "no." All the information available -- some of it right, some of it wrong, and some of it incomplete -- sometimes makes it hard to advise people. |
Re: Questioning At The Canada/US Border...
Originally Posted by JCraigFong
(Post 8891568)
You know, Meauxna, I can't begin to tell you how often I get someone in my office who says, "my cousin's brother-in-law's boss' housekeeper irons the shirts of a guy who got his green card by standing on his head and signing "Jerusalem. I want to get a green card the same way."
And when I say, "you can't do that," they get upset. Their EXPERIENCE tells them that it is supposed to be possible. *I* have to tell them that the law does not provide for this. On the other hand, someone may say, "the regulations say that you can do such-and-such," but I *know* that in practice, it won't happen. Again, I have to be the bad guy, saying "no." All the information available -- some of it right, some of it wrong, and some of it incomplete -- sometimes makes it hard to advise people. You could add in 'But the person I spoke to at USCIS/Consulate/border said this is so...'. |
Re: Questioning At The Canada/US Border...
Originally Posted by Rete
(Post 8891378)
Thanks JCF, the voice of calm and reason. You're so right IMHO that one day in the not to distant future, the Can/Am border will be tightened even more than it is today. Also think that they will institute a type of system similar to the ESTA for Canadians who that they, too, can be checked out before crossing. Will the need to do so be only because they are fearing illegal immigration by Canucks? Don't think so. Honestly believe it is because of the high useage of the Can/Am border by illegal immigrants to Canada who find this an easier way into the US.
Remember how upset and up in arms my in-laws where to learn that they would need passports to come to the US. Perhaps they will do something like our NYS driver's licenses that, for a higher fee, include our US citizenship as part of the drive's license and is good for the border crossing. Never in our 13 years of courtship and marriage has my husband been grilled at the US portion of the border but he has incurred rude and obnoxious behavior by several Canadian agents when attempting to enter is own country. |
Re: Questioning At The Canada/US Border...
Originally Posted by JCraigFong
(Post 8890784)
After almost 30 years in the legal profession, I have learned that one will rarely lose a wager, betting that the US will get more conservative in its approach to immigration -- whether at the border, or due to enforcement measures, or benefit programs. True: there have been times when the nation has lived according to its principles -- in immigration and elseways -- but I'd have to say that the devil is in the details.
Having said that, I think I recognize and understand in those who might challenge or be frightened by your observation about the border a wish -- realistic or not -- that it might not be so. That this nation will live up to its highest self, rather than reacting to its basest fears. As one who has specialized in civil rights and constitutional law for so many years, I understand the frustration, seeing my country move one way while our best principles exalt us to go another. Finally, I am certainly no stranger to being attacked by some contributors on B.E. I will no longer get into a spitting match with such a person, and I leave such a poster to assert what he likes, despite the fact that people could rely on such postings to their detriment. I wish I could say that you should not take such attacks personally; however, I think I understand that it is hard not to do so. In the end, I remind myself that we must be better than our worst selves. Sometimes, I succeed. You know that I take a historical approach to these things. There has been a nativist urge in this country going back to the Know Nothings, if not before. And both of us are amused at the argument of "my ancestors came here legally." I like to remind people that our organic immigration law is the Immigration & Nationality Act of 1952, as amended. This was a piece of McCarthyite legislation. A lot of was aimed at bugaboo group of people in that day -- "commiesandqueers." Of course, the "commiesandqueers" were making hay out of the fact we would not allow Koreans to immigrate to the US -- hence the de jure exclusion of the Yellow Peril was ended. [However, the practical effect remained due to quotas based on historical levels of immigration -- that is why Harry vetoed the damn thing]. Later this got tied up with the old re-entry doctrine and the Supremes had to rule on the cases of Mssrs. Bonetti and Fleuti -- both members of the despised class of commiesandqueers. In 1965, the de facto racial quotas were ended. But this also ended the favorable treatment for brits and northern Europeans. But 1968 was the start of the influx of FOB's to complement ABC's. Also, for the first time, a numerical restriction was placed on Western Hemisphere immigration. [In fact, I think the one constant in all the amendments is that Mexicans get screwed, but I digress]. Of course, for years the Courts would opine that Congress had "unfettered discretion" when it came to immigration. Fortunately, Congress routinely didn't think it was all that "unfettered." And then the Perfect Storm of 1996 happened and Congress took the courts at their word. The last 15 years have been interesting. I have found that the "if I were King" discussions by those actually in the immigration trenches are useful. I'm sure you got your point of view across in a very respectful way. We do live in interesting times. |
Re: Questioning At The Canada/US Border...
Originally Posted by Rete
(Post 8891378)
... but he has incurred rude and obnoxious behavior by several Canadian agents when attempting to enter is own country.
Ian |
Re: Questioning At The Canada/US Border...
Originally Posted by S Folinsky
(Post 8891691)
J
You know that I take a historical approach to these things. There has been a nativist urge in this country going back to the Know Nothings, if not before. And both of us are amused at the argument of "my ancestors came here legally." I like to remind people that our organic immigration law is the Immigration & Nationality Act of 1952, as amended. This was a piece of McCarthyite legislation. A lot of was aimed at bugaboo group of people in that day -- "commiesandqueers." Of course, the "commiesandqueers" were making hay out of the fact we would not allow Koreans to immigrate to the US -- hence the de jure exclusion of the Yellow Peril was ended. [However, the practical effect remained due to quotas based on historical levels of immigration -- that is why Harry vetoed the damn thing]. Later this got tied up with the old re-entry doctrine and the Supremes had to rule on the cases of Mssrs. Bonetti and Fleuti -- both members of the despised class of commiesandqueers. In 1965, the de facto racial quotas were ended. But this also ended the favorable treatment for brits and northern Europeans. But 1968 was the start of the influx of FOB's to complement ABC's. Also, for the first time, a numerical restriction was placed on Western Hemisphere immigration. [In fact, I think the one constant in all the amendments is that Mexicans get screwed, but I digress]. Of course, for years the Courts would opine that Congress had "unfettered discretion" when it came to immigration. Fortunately, Congress routinely didn't think it was all that "unfettered." And then the Perfect Storm of 1996 happened and Congress took the courts at their word. The last 15 years have been interesting. I have found that the "if I were King" discussions by those actually in the immigration trenches are useful. I'm sure you got your point of view across in a very respectful way. We do live in interesting times. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 10:06 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.