A friend who is a convicted felon (meth – she’s gotten her life back together) flew from Seattle to Anchorage. If some calamity had befallen the flight and it was forced to land in Canada, would the RCMP like, hold her on the plane or something? Since American felons can’t enter Canada?
She and others would be held in the port of entry receiving area (the airport) until they can clear customs. Not cleared? Not released.
I could be mistaken, but I believe most such passengers (such as those who re-routed flights on 9/11,) aren’t really considered immigrants or passing through immigration. Maybe they’d hold her in the holding area, let her sleep on the chairs, then send her back to the USA.
The typical answer is nobody, not even crew, is allowed to deplane, the airplane is refueled and the flight continues with nobody having legally entered e.g. Canada at all. Despite having sat in a jet on a ramp in Canada for a couple hours.
It gets much messier if the airplane or crew can’t continue timely. Major fuck-up points are awarded to the airline and Captain if the diversion airport is not a Canadian port of entry.
And what happens if the pilot has to pull a Sully and lands in the Strait of Georgia? Not a legal port of entry.
Whether they’re considered immigrants for the purposes of immigration law is one thing, but for sure the country they’re landing in has unlimited jurisdiction over people setting foot on the country’s soil, even if the passengers never leave the transit area. RCMP or whatever Canadian government agency is in charge of such things can lawfully enter the transit area and get them.
OK, but given the OP’s scenario, I think the Canadian government has absolutely zero interest in going aboard the plane to nab the felon. They don’t want the felon. And the felon isn’t planning to enter Canada. There’s no reason Canada wouldn’t just say, “OK, you just stay on the plane until the plane is refueled or fixed and then you go to Alaska like you were planning to.”
There is nothing for the Canadians to “get” her for.
Unless, of course, the reason for being “forced to land” is because there’s something wrong with the plane.
I’d say that depends on the notability of the passenger. If the thing had happened prior to June 2024, and Julian Assange had been on the plane, the Canadian authorities would certainly have got him, because they knew how eagerly the Americans wanted him; they’d have got him as a matter of foreign policy, because not doing so would have soured relations with the US. As far as some no-name meth cook is concerned, they probably wouldn’t have cared.
I know there are international rules for shipwrecked sailors, etc.
Likely these have been updated now, and will apply to plane crashes, etc.
Well, there’s “Something is wrong with the plane so we can’t legally continue to our destination, but there’s still enough redundancy left that we can safely make it to a suitable port of entry” and then there’s “Something is really, really wrong with the plane and people will die if we don’t land ASAP.” The vast majority of diversions are the former.
ETA: Never mind, I think I misunderstood your comment. You were commenting on the time spent on the ground, not the selection of the diversion airport.
I was once on a flight from Tel Aviv to London when the toilets broke after an hour in the air (someone, I think, tried to flush a diaper). We landed in Athens, deplaned, went through an improvised customs station at the gate and hung out at the terminal for 4 hours until EasyJet could send a replacement. The impression I got was that everyone wanted us in and out as quickly and efficiently as possible; we certainly weren’t free to leave the terminal.
The OP refers to a convicted felon , but does not mention the person being a fugitive so it seems that person is not currently wanted by the US. Not the same situation as one of the passengers being wanted by the US ( or any other country)
Redundancy that you rely upon is not redundancy.
And I’d have thought that most diversions were weather-related, not anything with the plane at all.
So many people don’t understand that.
The OPs proposed situation is someone who is a convicted felon , so has been convicted and has paid their dues and is not on the run or otherwise wanted.
The plan has to land in Canada . What does Canada do?
Canada doesn’t have any reason to prosecute this person, there are no arrest warrants out for this person for any country that has an extradition agreement with Canada or any reason for Canada to take this person into custody. If they were a wanted felon then Canada could go and arrest them , but this isn’t the situation as far as the OP has stated.
If the situation required deplanning ,and they couldn’t stay in the airport until the problem was fixed so they needed to go through immigration , Canada would do exactly the same as if they were denying entry into the country for anyone else for any other reason, hold them at the airport immigration facility and put them on the next available flight out the country back where they came from. The only problem the felon would have is if they lied on any of immigration forms they would have to fill out. Maybe they get a big denied stamp in their passport .
Immigration officers may have some latitude and given the person was not making an intentional attempt to enter Canada , they may just hold them at the immigration facility and put them on the fixed or replacement plane onward to their original destination rather than send them back to their origin .
If the plan lands at an airport or location with no immigration facility , then it’s a whole cluster to deal with.
Are you aware that Canada refuses all entry to convicted felons of other countries? It’s not a matter of dealing with prosecuting or extraditing fleeing criminals.
They simply don’t want proven low-lifes in their nice country. As is their right.
Is that the case? What I found was that Canada reserves the right to refuse entry to felons - but may choose to allow entry
Was that in response to my comments ?
If so yes, that was my point, Canada just refuses entry when or if the person gets to the immigration desk and sends them back, just like any other person the immigration officer determines isn’t coming in to Canada.
Edit to add - if some one who was a felon is planning to transit through Canada ( ie planned connection in Canada but not planning to enter Canada they still requires a transit visa depending on country of citizenship . US citizens don’t need to do that but there is probably a clause that says if you have a conviction you probably need one .
Pointless anecdote - My wife ( from Argentina) had an interesting outcome when she traveled to Argentina from the US via Toronto as it was way cheaper than a direct flight . She applied and got the required transit visa before the start of the trip. On the way back the flight out of Buenos Aires was delayed so they got into Toronto late and she missed connecting flight to the US and there were no more flights as it was late at night. The airline had lots of people stay over night in a hotel, I assume she had to go through immigration but nothing was flagged as an issue and she got on a flight next day. About 3 months later we got a letter from Canadian immigration saying she is banned from Canada because she entered the country in contravention to the transit visa ! We haven’t bothered to deal with that yet and is a US citizen now, although probably need to check what the deal is if we ever have to go to Canada.
It would depend on the airport and the flight. If you’re talking about an Europe—North America flight, they won’t land in the high Canadian Arctic just because there’s a thunderstorm in Los Angeles, four hours further along in their flight path. They’d most likely hope it clears by the time they arrive, and divert to somewhere closer if it’s still necessary by the time they get to Southern California.
Every now & then you hear about a Europe—North America flight getting diverted to Iqaluit (lat. 64° N). Most of the planes that get diverted there are cases like this one, where there’s a mechanical issue that needs to be addressed promptly, on the ground. Many of the rest are medical emergencies.