Disembark Vancouver with police record?

[broberts]

1 hour ago, bEwAbG said:

 

As it applies to DUIs, it is arbitrary, particularly if it's a misdemeanor in someone's home country.  I just think they would be smart to either clarify their assessments (US CBP says "one DUI will not prevent entry but multiple DUIs might," for example) or provide a mechanism to get advanced clearance that isn't a months-long process.  The angst comes from people finding out last minute about this rule, which is atypical in the world.  

 

If someone shows up at the border with clearance documents, should an agent be bound to admit that person under all circumstances? Of course not. What if the agent discovered a banned substance in the person's possession? Yet you claim that would be an "arbitrary" decision.

 

Canada is quite clear, one DUI conviction is enough to deny entry. Read the link I provided earlier, all of the criteria are specified. That the mitigation may take months is likely down to the difficulty a verifying the criminal background of foreigners.

 

Denying entry to those convicted of a criminal act is not unique in the world. That some people do not bother to check on the entry requirements of a country they intend to visit is unfortunate. That some leave such checking to last minute is also unfortunate. Suggesting this angst is somehow down to the rules a country has for entry makes no sense, especially since those rules do not differ significantly from the rules of its neighbors.

[*Miss G*]

2 hours ago, bEwAbG said:

The angst comes from people finding out last minute about this rule, which is atypical in the world.  

 

I guess the angst for me would be drinking and driving.

[awhcruiser]

10 minutes ago, *Miss G* said:

 

I guess the angst for me would be drinking and driving.

That's how to have all of this avoided.

[grsnovi]

13 hours ago, broberts said:

That some people do not bother to check on the entry requirements of a country they intend to visit is unfortunate.

As a young person, a friend and I drove from Pennsylvania to Montreal in the early 1970's. There was no questioning of DUI's when we crossed into Canada. Over the last 50 years I have traveled to various Canadian cities via: automobile, plane and ship and the notion of possibly being refused entry never even entered my mind. That said - I don't have any hidden DUI's - what I do have is a sense that there could be a better means of flagging THE POSSIBILITY that entering Canada COULD be an issue SPECIFICALLY in the case of a DUI which many would never consider to be a reason to prevent vacation travel. I don't understand the apparent indignation being expressed by various responders to this thread to a more explicit set of warnings. I'm 65 years old and was completely caught off guard by the possibility that members of my party of 10 could face issues next week while on a family cruise.

[broberts]

1 minute ago, grsnovi said:

to a more explicit set of warnings

 

What would you consider "a more explicitly set of warnings"?

[sammiedawg]

I have been aware of this restriction but only because I’ve read cruise critic for years.   Doubt the average American knows anything about it.  And why would an American do extensive research before they enter Canada?  I never have and we are Alaskan affectionados, we’ve taken multiple trips that involve a port in Canada.  Travel agents never mentioned this issue and never heard a word about it on board a ship. 

I know someone with a DUI history x 2 or 3.   This person has  taken several Alaskan cruises and never mentioned a hint of a problem.  

My impression is hodgepodge enforcement.  

 

No DUI’s here. 

 

[1of4]

54 minutes ago, grsnovi said:

As a young person, a friend and I drove from Pennsylvania to Montreal in the early 1970's. There was no questioning of DUI's when we crossed into Canada. Over the last 50 years I have traveled to various Canadian cities via: automobile, plane and ship and the notion of possibly being refused entry never even entered my mind. That said - I don't have any hidden DUI's - what I do have is a sense that there could be a better means of flagging THE POSSIBILITY that entering Canada COULD be an issue SPECIFICALLY in the case of a DUI which many would never consider to be a reason to prevent vacation travel. I don't understand the apparent indignation being expressed by various responders to this thread to a more explicit set of warnings. I'm 65 years old and was completely caught off guard by the possibility that members of my party of 10 could face issues next week while on a family cruise.

 

To turn the question around: are you aware of every reason a person/family travelling to your country can be denied entry?  Do you know the phone number and website to provide so that anyone travelling from any country can find out at home before they travel to find out?

 

it comes a time when we all need to take responsibility for our own actions, past and present.  The onus is on travellers to take steps to find out if they have ever been incarcerated  or if they have a police record if that may be an issue in the country you plan to travel to or through.

 

stop blaming other countries for their laws.  We had a neighbour who couldn’t ever cross into the USA because he had a record for marijuana when he was a teen.  Even in his 50s the US would not waver.  These rules go both ways.  I knew a woman who had to fly to Australia via London instead of Los Angles because she knew the USA would not allow her to pass through.  The difference is both these people knew in advance and didn’t bash the USA for their laws as they took responsibility for their own actions.

[grsnovi]

1 hour ago, broberts said:

What would you consider "a more explicitly set of warnings

HAL could easily add a short paragraph in their KNOW BEFORE YOU GO on cruises originating in the USA with ports of call in Canada that said something like: "Canadian rules of entry include screening for old DUI's which are considered grounds for denial of entry." It could also be added to the information a travel agent could advise clients of. I'm not saying that I disagree with the restriction or that a DUI isn't a serious offense but I suspect that I'm not the only one who wasn't aware this would be an issue.

[grsnovi]

32 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

stop blaming other countries for their laws.

Don't be so sensitive - I'm not blaming anyone for anything, I'm merely suggesting that the travel industry (HAL, cruise lines and travel agents) could be more proactive in flagging what could potentially be a vacation ruining event. I've traveled extensively without incident and without ever having worried about being admitted to another country - and I never have been and I don't know all of the rules in all of the countries where I've gone. I agree that times are very different for travelers than they were 50 years ago and that border security is important. Making vacationing tourists aware of situations that could potentially ruin a vacation seems to me to be in the interest of the travel industry. A blanket "you need to be aware of the myriad array of esoteric travel restrictions" isn't really enough - even in the internet age.

[broberts]

3 minutes ago, grsnovi said:

HAL could easily add a short paragraph in their KNOW BEFORE YOU GO on cruises originating in the USA with ports of call in Canada that said something like: "Canadian rules of entry include screening for old DUI's which are considered grounds for denial of entry." It could also be added to the information a travel agent could advise clients of. I'm not saying that I disagree with the restriction or that a DUI isn't a serious offense but I suspect that I'm not the only one who wasn't aware this would be an issue.

 

Certainly that would help with DUI, but what about warnings of other issues? Just how far should cruise lines go in warning people that past actions might disqualify them from entry into another country? It seems to me there are so many variables that the approach taken by cruise lines, (warn passengers that they are responsible for travel documentation), is the only practical approach.

 

Threads like this do help spread the word. Unfortunately people prone to not checking official entry requirements are less likely to use any other online resources.

 

[0bnxshs]

Abrogating one's personal responsibilities may be why so many find this predicament surprising.  Be responsible enough for yourself, your conduct and your intentions so you don't have to depend on others who can't possibly be concerned with each individual's personal circumstances to tell you how to behave.

 

What ever has happened to being responsible for yourself?

Edited July 31, 2019 by 0bnxshs

[taxmantoo]

4 minutes ago, grsnovi said:

Don't be so sensitive - I'm not blaming anyone for anything, I'm merely suggesting that the travel industry (HAL, cruise lines and travel agents) could be more proactive in flagging what could potentially be a vacation ruining event. I've traveled extensively without incident and without ever having worried about being admitted to another country - and I never have been and I don't know all of the rules in all of the countries where I've gone. I agree that times are very different for travelers than they were 50 years ago and that border security is important. Making vacationing tourists aware of situations that could potentially ruin a vacation seems to me to be in the interest of the travel industry. A blanket "you need to be aware of the myriad array of esoteric travel restrictions" isn't really enough - even in the internet age.

Most people will agree that "what could potentially be a vacation ruining event" happened many years ago and only you were there.  It is not HAL's or your travel agent's responsibility to remind you.

[grsnovi]

9 minutes ago, taxmantoo said:

and only you were there

...but if you are coordinating making travel arrangements for a group (or say purchasing multiple cabins for an extended family vacation) and you aren't personally aware of all of your children's spouses and adopted children's legal history...

 

I don't expect to be reminded I'm just saying that it would have been nice (months ago) had somebody mentioned this to me.

 

It isn't an issue for my family but it seems that it could be an easy thing (even a courteous thing) for a travel professional to mention.

 

End of engagement - tired of the lack of understanding.

Edited July 31, 2019 by grsnovi

[richwmn]

19 minutes ago, grsnovi said:

It isn't an issue for my family but it seems that it could be an easy thing (even a courteous thing) for a travel professional to mention.

If you were talking about travel agents from maybe twenty years ago I might agree with you. However, many travel agents today are little better than order takers. They basically fill in the same forms that you could yourself and get a commission for it, which some rebate to the customer.

A friend is going thru this with a travel agent right now. Without placing fault anywhere, a deposit wasn't made for 1 cabin in a group of 6.  That 1 cabin is now having to pay more for the cruise without having the same benefits. The travel agent is saying that their hands are tied and that is the only solution.

It would be almost impossible for any travel agent, cruise line, or airline to predict what what might happen when a customer gets to a border.

 

[TAD2005]

6 hours ago, 0bnxshs said:

Abrogating one's personal responsibilities may be why so many find this predicament surprising.  Be responsible enough for yourself, your conduct and your intentions so you don't have to depend on others who can't possibly be concerned with each individual's personal circumstances to tell you how to behave.

 

What ever has happened to being responsible for yourself?

If someone has made a stupid mistake 30, 30, or 50 years ago, has paid their debt to society, and maintained a trouble free life since then, I would say that they truly HAVE "taken responsibility for themselves".   If there is never any forgiveness in life,  what is the use of mending your ways.   I blame both the US and Canada for their archaic laws, that condemn an individual for a single transgression decades ago.   "Those without sin may cast the first stone".   I seriously doubt that any of the lawmakers on either side of the border who formulated these laws have never taken a drink and then drove a car.   Especially in the 70's, 80's, and 90's when the 3 martini lunch was standard business conversation.   

[broberts]

19 minutes ago, TAD2005 said:

If someone has made a stupid mistake 30, 30, or 50 years ago, has paid their debt to society, and maintained a trouble free life since then, I would say that they truly HAVE "taken responsibility for themselves".   If there is never any forgiveness in life,  what is the use of mending your ways.   I blame both the US and Canada for their archaic laws, that condemn an individual for a single transgression decades ago.   "Those without sin may cast the first stone".   I seriously doubt that any of the lawmakers on either side of the border who formulated these laws have never taken a drink and then drove a car.   Especially in the 70's, 80's, and 90's when the 3 martini lunch was standard business conversation.   

 

Both the US and Canada take into account the age of an offense. That is clearly stated on the relevant web pages. Suggesting otherwise is incorrect.

[TAD2005]

That's wonderful that they have a time limit, but is that limit published anywhere ?   A statement something like "If your felony was 10 years ago, you are clear to cross the border in either direction".    Taking into consideration the age of your offence does no one any good if you don't find out if you are cleared to enter until you are face-to-face with the border agent.  Before you plop down thousands of dollars on a cruise, it would be nice to have a definitive statement that a person will have no issues.

[*Miss G*]

2 minutes ago, TAD2005 said:

That's wonderful that they have a time limit, but is that limit published anywhere ? 

 

Yes.  It’s in the links I posted on page 1 of this thread.

 

On 7/27/2019 at 11:04 AM, *Miss G* said:

If the crime is serious enough I would be surprised if the applicant would be allowed to board. You may want to visit this site for answers to your questions:

 

Government of Canada - Inadmissibility

 

On 7/27/2019 at 12:12 PM, *Miss G* said:

 

A DUI is inadmissible.  Since it has not yet been 10 years since the offense they cannot avail themselves of deemed rehabilitation.

 

A consulate is not where you want to call.  The Canada Border Services Agency will have the answers.

 

[npcl]

On 7/31/2019 at 8:39 AM, broberts said:

 

Certainly that would help with DUI, but what about warnings of other issues? Just how far should cruise lines go in warning people that past actions might disqualify them from entry into another country? It seems to me there are so many variables that the approach taken by cruise lines, (warn passengers that they are responsible for travel documentation), is the only practical approach.

 

Threads like this do help spread the word. Unfortunately people prone to not checking official entry requirements are less likely to use any other online resources.

 

When one travels to another country, at a minimum one should check:

 

1. Visa requirements

2. Immunization requirements

3. Legal status of medication (some that are legal in the US, both perscription and over the counter are illegal in other countries, even with a perscription. For example Sudafed in Japan)

4. Insurance requirements (some require local health insurance for stays over a certain length)

5. Other legal requirements for entry

6. Other items that are forbidden to be brought into the country.

Edited August 1, 2019 by npcl

[awhcruiser]

On 7/31/2019 at 11:41 AM, 0bnxshs said:

Abrogating one's personal responsibilities may be why so many find this predicament surprising.  Be responsible enough for yourself, your conduct and your intentions so you don't have to depend on others who can't possibly be concerned with each individual's personal circumstances to tell you how to behave.

 

What ever has happened to being responsible for yourself?

Best post ever!

[Oakman58]

On 7/31/2019 at 10:41 AM, 0bnxshs said:

Abrogating one's personal responsibilities may be why so many find this predicament surprising.  Be responsible enough for yourself, your conduct and your intentions so you don't have to depend on others who can't possibly be concerned with each individual's personal circumstances to tell you how to behave.

 

What ever has happened to being responsible for yourself?

 

In many cases, as was the case of the couple we know that were denied entry into Mexico, none of us knew that criminal records were shared between countries.  BTW, at the time, the felony conviction was 10 years old and she didn't spend one day in jail.

 

Not everyone who uses a travel agent to purchase an overseas vacation package spends hours on the Internet researching that vacation or the country.

[npcl]

1 hour ago, Oakman58 said:

 

In many cases, as was the case of the couple we know that were denied entry into Mexico, none of us knew that criminal records were shared between countries.  BTW, at the time, the felony conviction was 10 years old and she didn't spend one day in jail.

 

Not everyone who uses a travel agent to purchase an overseas vacation package spends hours on the Internet researching that vacation or the country.

They should.  It helps prevent surprises. Especially if there are any unusual circumstances in ones back ground.

 

It really doesn't take hours, you can usually get answers for any country in a few minutes by searching on a couple of simple questions.  A few minutes is much better than being denied access, or even getting arrested by having contraband in ones possession.

 

If one doesn't want to do it themselves they should at least ask their travel agent, if they use one.

 

Edited August 2, 2019 by npcl

[summer slope]

This was a very informative thread.  I have two questions.  1)  Is there  a list someplace that lists prescription meds that are not allowed in other countries?  And 2)  If a cruise is going from Seattle to Alaska, without stops in Canada....I know it doesn't....but if it did could the person with the long ago DUI take that cruise?

[Shmoo here]

7 minutes ago, summer slope said:

1)  Is there  a list someplace that lists prescription meds that are not allowed in other countries? 

No list that I know of.  Perhaps this could help:

https://www.cdc.gov/features/travel-medicine/index.html

 

When we travel to a new country, I usually do a search for "Bringing medicine to XXX(country)"  

[broberts]

33 minutes ago, summer slope said:

This was a very informative thread.  I have two questions.  1)  Is there  a list someplace that lists prescription meds that are not allowed in other countries?  And 2)  If a cruise is going from Seattle to Alaska, without stops in Canada....I know it doesn't....but if it did could the person with the long ago DUI take that cruise?

 

One needs to consult the restricted/controlled drug list of each country. Some border control agencies do have a web page dealing with the issue.

 

https://www.americancruiselines.com/cruises/alaska-and-pacific-northwest/alaska-inside-passage-cruise