Not anymore. There was a big ad campaign warning everyone to get birth certificates issued, as baptismal ones no longer cut it.
There is a category of work visa, the TN, which allows reciprocal entry of professionals for employment in certain categories (some of the ones we use most often are Computer Systems Analyst, Engineer, Chemist, Biologist, etc.). Theoretically one can get extensions in one-year increments as long as the BCIS is convinced the stay isn’t actually permanent; one must always retaint he intent to return to one’s home country. Mexicans are also eligible for TNs, but then there is a yearly quota of 5,000 IIRC, plus Mexicans have to show they are being paid the prevailing wage. The more important difference is that Mexicans can’t process at the border; they have to process at the BCIS and then go to a consulate and get a visa. Canadians are visa-exempt for almost all categories of visa, which means they can just show up at the border with their documents to enter in the TN or L categories.
The L-1 (Intracompany Transferee) is another category of work visa which both Canadians and Mexicans can apply for, but again, Canadians are visa-exempt, but Mexicans are not. The logistics work similarly.
As for the baptismal certificates: thanks for the heads-up, matt_mcl. I actually wasn’t aware of the change, because most of my clients have passports or government-issued birth certificates, either of which works just fine for the purpose of a work visa. The birth certificate issue generally pops up at the green card stage, and with the economy the way it has been, I haven’t done too many of those in the past couple of years. (We always sued to tell people to get the government-issued ones anyway, because we’d invariably end up with some examiner who didn’t know about the Quebec exception, and it would create all sorts of headaches.)
Otherwise, as a practical matter the U.S. recognizes marriages of any country that are recognized by the state authorities of that country, as long as they otherwise comply with U.S. law: i.e. they are not bigamous or polygamous, etc. as discussed previously. I can’t remember this ever happening to a Dutch couple, which actually surprises me.
I really cannot understand what the fuss is all about.
The only salient and relevant fact of any consequence is that within the borders of the USA, the State and Federal laws of the USA take precedence over the laws of any foreign jurisdiction.
Of course, if one of the Canadian couple gave birth to a child once within the environs of the USA, then a whole series of new legal issues involving citizenship would automatically come into play. But I don’t think we need to explore this aspect too deeply.
Eva, based on these answers, I think it is incorrect to say that the American policy of granting visa exemptions to Canadians is based on the NAFTA. Mexico, Canada and the U.S. are equal partners under the NAFTA. If the NAFTA requires the U.S. to grant this special visa status to Canadians, it would also require the U.S. to grant the same status to Mexicans.
It sounds to me like the U.S. government has decided to give Canadians a special position, but not because the NAFTA requires it to do so.
I’m not so clear at 7 a.m., but maybe I can be clearer now: the TN category applies to both Canadians and Mexicans, giving them the right to work in the U.S. in certain professions. The difference is in the processing.
Canadians can basically just show up at the border, because they don’t need to get visas in their passports in advance (or at all). Mexicans need to do everything ahead of time and get a visa at a consulate. But the end result is the same: they can work in the U.S. in TN status. The status is the same; it’s only the processing requirements that are different.
(I should also clarify that the term “visa” is often misapplied. The visa itself is the piece of encoded paper with photo and biographic identifiers that is affixed into the passport. The “status” is the immigration category in which the person is entering the U.S., for work, tourism, or whatever. Canadians can have the status without needing the actual physical visa.)
Please. Those of you insisting that the US somehow violated some nebulous obligation by refusing to allow this couple to use the same immigration form are not only incorrect, you are denigrating what this couple did.
This couple engaged in an act of civil disobedience. The point of their refusal to use separate forms wasn’t that the US was legally obliged to recognize their marriage, but that the US law which refuses to recognize their marriage is a bad law. Good for them.
Of course, civil disobedience has consequences. If you blockade the World Bank, you get arrested. And if you refuse to comply with US law and fill out two separate forms, you are refused entry into the US.
There is only one issue here - whether the US’s refusal to recognize gay marriages (foreign or domestic) is a good law or a bad law. Where I stand on that issue is definitively that it is a bad law.
The refusal of US customs to fill out the same form not only complied with US law, but served the purpose the Canadian couple intended by their act of civil disobedience* - to draw attention to that bad law.
Sua
*I presume they intended this because they went to the press.
Sua: Isn’t the issue here actually, “Is the law such that the US government does not consider gay couples to be married?” I don’t see how it being a good or bad law really factors into what the Customs/Border personnel did.
Well, there are probably fewer Dutch visitors to the US than Canadian ones, and a Dutch visitor is much less likely to cancel a trip merely because of a dislike of the customs procedures. Furthermore, Canada has allowed gay people to sue others for upsetting them, so it’s not terribly surprising that they are starting to expect the same pampering from other countries.
SuaSponte
I think that by calling this “civil disobedience”, you are denigrating the concept of CD. CD does not mean throwing a temper tantrum whenever something does not go your way. CD means that you believe that there is an injustice so flagrantly evil that it trumps one’s normal obligation to respect a country’s authority, and you therefore break the law in order to address the injustice. There is no grave injustice, no laws were broken, and the couple in question received no punishment. Calling this CD is silly. A better term would be “publicy stunt”.
Why is it a bad law? Should the US allow other countries to decide what unions the US considers to be marriages?
the issue here, despite what you think, is not that the US should allow other countries to decide what Marriage is, but rather that the US needs to look at how it will deal with those countries that do allow gay marriages. are we going to dismiss the rights of citizens of another country that are here visiting (hospital emergency situations that any wife, with the same last name or not, can deal with; or other emergency situations) or are we goign to decide that those rights do not translate to the us? this does not require us to recognize same sex marriage here in the us, only those that are of forign citizens that are here to visit. as the current law sits, anyone that is trying to immigrate here as a gay married couple should not be permitted to enter because this is opening the door to recognizing gay marriages (not that I woudl be opposed to allowing gay marriages, as I hope to get married some day, but this is our current law, and lord willing, not an ammendment).
Not to mention medical issues…
One point here deserves a bit more clarification. What is the rule regarding married couples with different surnames? Do they have to fill out two forms upon entering the US? (I don’t know from my own experience, even though my ex and I always had to fill out two forms anyway.)
Hopefully not to intitiate even more of a hijack…why do Canadian citizens have to fill out forms when they fly to the US anyway? It’s not as if they have to do it when they drive to the US.
Both of these issues were thoroughly discussed in this thread.
-
According to the announcement on the international flight I took last week, married couples with different surnames must fill out separate forms.
-
They were Customs Declaration forms. Everyone, including US Citzens, must fill these out when entering the country.
Haj
I imagine that filling out forms when driving across the border would be at the discretion of the officer at the border. I’ve been back and forth across the border many times, and I’ve had many different experiences with US Customs–all the way from a couple of basic questions before being waved through, to having to pull the car over for a search while I fill out forms in the customs office.
In other words, at a border crossing, forms likely are required, although it seems that the customs officer can waive that requirement.
At an major airport (especially Toronto’s Pearson airport, where this incident took place), I would imagine that there are so many people from so many places–Canadian travellers, of course, but also foreigners coming from overseas and making connections to and through the US–that it is easier to have everybody fill out the forms that the US requires of their nationality.
I may have been waved through after a couple of basic questions when I’ve driven to the border, but every time I’ve flown to the US through Pearson, I’ve had to fill out forms. But that’s okay–if I want to get into their country, I’m going to have to play by their rules about entering. And if forms are required to fly in; well, I’ll remember to take a pen to the airport.
Firstly, why should a gay married couple not be permitted - if the US does not recognize the marriage, then they should be admitted but the US would not recognize that they are married (I assume you are talking about the situation in general, not the incident in the OP, as the couple were allowed to enter - all they had to do was fill in separate customs forms). Secondly, if you look closely at your keyboard you will probably find two keys labeled “Shift”. Used appropriately, these keys will make your posts a closer approximation to English.
Well, that’s been the really annoying thing about this thread. That’s not an “issue” - that’s a fact. Start with the Defense of Marriage Act and work yer way from there.
And your focus is incorrect - what is at issue here is not what the Customs personnel did. They did as their job required. What is at issue is whether their job should require them to act as they did; IOW whether the law is a good one or a bad one.
Isn’t it in the eye of the beholder, The Ryan? I think that anti-WTO protestors are being idiots, not protesting “an injustice so flagrantly evil that it trumps one’s normal obligation to respect a country’s authority,” but I recognize that they are engaging in civil disobedience. Because, you see, they think they are fighting a grave injustice. Ditto the Canadian couple here.
In any event, the couple in question did refuse to comply with the law, and they did receive punishment - they were refused access to the United States.
Sua
Well, that’s been the really annoying thing about this thread. That’s not an “issue” - that’s a fact. Start with the Defense of Marriage Act and work yer way from there.
And your focus is incorrect - what is at issue here is not what the Customs personnel did. They did as their job required. What is at issue is whether their job should require them to act as they did; IOW whether the law is a good one or a bad one.
Isn’t it in the eye of the beholder, The Ryan? I think that anti-WTO protestors are being idiots, not protesting “an injustice so flagrantly evil that it trumps one’s normal obligation to respect a country’s authority,” but I recognize that they are engaging in civil disobedience. Because, you see, they think they are fighting a grave injustice. Ditto the Canadian couple here.
In any event, the couple in question did refuse to comply with the law, and they did receive punishment - they were refused access to the United States.
Sua
Sua: So the issue is if the Customs/Border personnel should do their job?! I believe the answer to that query is self-evident.
Um, that’s exactly the opposite of what I wrote.
Sua
So, what you’re saying is, that the fact that these two men were required to fill out two forms had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the US recognizes gay marriage?
Well, I can’t argue with that then.
No one obtains rights by getting married. One may obtain privileges, but one does not obtain rights.
SuaSponte
" " right back at you, Sua. Sure, there is no objective standard. There is no objective standards for what constitutes a “hero” either, but that doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t object to someone calling the 9/11 hijackers heroes. Merely because something is a matter of opinion, that does not make all opinions equal.
If the Canadian couple truly believes that they are fighting a grave injustice, they are in serious need of a sense of proportion.
No, the law says that people must fill out the form or not enter the US. They chose the latter. Had they neither filled out the form, not canceled their trip, that would have been breaking the law.
You seem unclear on the distinction between “consequence” and “punishment”.
Maybe I am being whooshed here but that is not at what I am saying at all. They were refused entry because they insisted on only having to fill out one form. The customs official said they were not married as far as US law is concerned so they had to fill out one form each. They never even got to the separate surname issue. That is the irony of this whole thing. Even is the US did recognize their marriage, they would have had to fill out two forms anyway since they had different last names.
Haj
PS What The Ryan said.