I’m fine with countries sharing criminal data because the above won’t ever happen. Countries are not itching to punish our criminals for us. They are not going to re-punish someone who got off lightly in the US. They simply want to turn them away at the door. Giving them all of the information to make an informed decision is perfectly fine.
Perhaps, had the US government shared the student’s criminal record with the Japanese at the time of the visa application, he would have been turned down earlier and saved the cost of expensive airline tickets.
Would that be more, or less, just?
I would like to refute somw points made here:
-
Several posters seem to think that we have no right to judge another nations immigration policy, as if it is nothing more than the rules parents set at the dinner table. But this opinion makes no sense. To see why, let us look at an example of another nation’s law which is routinely considered unjust. Saudi Arabia does not allow women to drive cars, and has taken plenty of flack for it from activists and others around the world. But, if we can judge another nations driving policy (and this is only one of several examples I could point to of laws regarded as unjust by other nations), why can we no criticize their immigration policy when it inflicts unjust consequences on a person, such as being denied entry into another country for a minor criminal record. Furthermore, international travel is not always purely optional. I have read of cases of people being cut off from seeing most of their relatives because of being denied entry into Canada, and one could imagine a host of other situations in which au laws could be highly disastrous for an individual. If you reply by saying “well, tough luck,” I would again ask why we cannot also say this of Saudi women, burmese cold soldiers, or a host of other people being treated unfairly around the world. Even if it could be argued at it would be wrong to compel another naon to change its laws in any way, I would still argue that we are not obligated to aid and abbey their unjust immigration laws, ruling out record sharing.
-
Other posters seem to think that wwe should share such info so that other naons will share it with us. I understand the sentiment, but even if other nations do not share it with us directly there are will other ways we can get it (by requesting a police certificate, for example). Further, I question the need to actually look at such info in the first place. Crime is often the result of circumstance and need not indicate bad character (in fact, people have a tendency to over attribute peoples actions to character and not the situation, which is called the fundamental attribution bias). Further, research (Google it if you don’t believe me) suggests that the predictive effect of a past criminal record on recidivism fades after about five years. Even sex offenders, despite the common belief that the will almost always reoffend unless monitored, do not have a high recidivism rate (as far as we can tell). As a further point, most schengen zone countries will hardly ask questions of visitors staying under 90 days about criminal history, though they will ask about it if you want to stay longer. See the article, “sharing criminal records: the united states, European union, and …” by jb Jacobs for more info. If Europe does not feel the need to ask such info of tourists, why should Canada? And why should we help them?
-
Many people here have said that criminal records are public info that any country can look up regardless of sharing. True, but sharing it certainly makes it easier for them to get it. Further, I believe that it would be better if criminal records were not public. I will not argue that point now, but I will point out that most continental ( this does not include the UK and Ireland) european nations keep criminal records relatively ( though not completely) closed. In Spain, for example, an employer cannot do a background check except by asking for a certificate directly from the employee, which most supposedly don’t. Further, posting criminal record information on the internet is punishible in Spain by a fine. See a book called The Eternal Criminal Record for more info. You can also search find plenty of journal articles about how continental europe treats criminal records around the web.
-
According to one article titled “Canada: drunk driving ban under review” on juetlanded.com, the strict exclusion of people with dui’s on their record has hurt Canada’s tourism sector, so maybe it would be in Canada’s self interest if we did not help them enforce the law.
That’s all I will say for now.
I just want to point out that I meant to type justlanded.com, not juetlanded.com, in the last paragraph. The URL for the article is Canada: Drunk driving ban under review, DUI conviction could no longer be barrier to entry into Canada, It.
Let them apply for a pardon through state or federal authorities as applicable.
Try and look up a California Conviction then. Technically yes, public records.
The flip side is the us authorities are very keen to know about visitors criminal records.
Just because Japan can ruin someone’s vacation over an old pot charge doesn’t mean they should. “It’s their country” is an amoral argument. Certainly, the facts are that Japan can kick people out of their country because they smoked pot once in the US. But this is the debate forum. Hold a position. Don’t just say “technically, they can”.
That shit is wrong. “Majority rules” is wrong. Minorities have rights. The fact that the minority of [potheads/DUI offenders/gay men/atheists/women/etc] can be ridden out of another country on a rail is not a good thing. And we shouldn’t encourage it.
My point exactly. I find myself scratching my head and wondering why so many people on this thresd are willing to put another nations’ immigration policy outside the realm of moral judgement? I can only guess that it is because they do not want our immigration policy to be judged, which I believe some of the posters above have hinted at.
Not to draw his into a huge debate about malum prohibitum vs malum in se, I think most folks are willing to give other countries a fair amount of leeway when it comes to choosing not only who they want to let into their country but what criminal laws the country finds important. That leeway runs out when there are clear violations of civil rights.
So what if Saudi Arabia wanted to ban visits by foreigners who had ever touched alcohol? Well, I don’t agree that’s good policy, but I don’t think there’s a universal human right to get hammered. There’s also no widely recognized right to be allowed in Saudi Arabia. So if they want to have their rules, whatever.
Now if Trump wanted to ban Muslims from entering the US, even though “our country our rules” could theoretically apply in a similar manner, I think discrimination based on religious belief to be a pretty egregious violation of human rights. I can’t remotely equate such bigotry to smoking pot or drinking alcohol.
Agreed. Japan, as a sovereign nation, can deny entry to foreigners who were ever talked in class in elementary school if it wants. That doesn’t mean the United States should provide elementary school records from 1977 and provide them to Japan.
If Canada is unreasonable about letting U.S. citizens travel because of minor DUI convictions from many years ago, then we should simply deny them access to that information.
Be careful what you wish for. That information sharing is bilateral, and the US does it because it finds it to its advantage. Furthermore, keep in mind that from the US side of the border, it may seem that Canada or other countries are being “unreasonable”, but from the other side, it’s often US border policies that appear draconian and downright ludicrous:
Matthew Harvey wants to take his three-year-old daughter Lika to Disneyland in California, but after being banned from the United States for the rest of his life, that task isn’t going to be easy.
Harvey has not been excluded for having a criminal record, or for trying to smuggle drugs into the U.S. He’s being punished for providing a seemingly harmless answer to a question posed by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection service.
“They said that I was inadmissible because I admitted to smoking marijuana after the age of 18 and before I’d received my medical marijuana licence,” he said.
As a person who has lived most of my life in a country different from that where I was born, I just want to say,
I think the whole turning back criminals at the border thing is insane.
It doesn’t make everybody better off. I does make everybody worse off. The world isn’t better off because Canadian criminals can’t spend time in the USA, while an equivilant number of American criminals spend time in Canada. But we’re all worse off because most of us have to put up with system that enfoces the exclusion.
I agree that there is much that is unjust about America’s immigration system, so I would not blame those other countries for thinking our system is unreasonable.
Further, I would also question whether the United States really needs to background check every visitor who comes. Criminal records are of limited use for predicting future behavior, as I explained in post #23. Further, I also pointed out that most continental European countries (those that are members of the Schengen zone at least) do not make significant inquiries into visitors criminal records if they are only visiting. At this point I should admit that the article I cited for this point is the wrong one (I wrote that post rather quickly) and should have been cited as “CRIMINAL RECORDS AND IMMIGRATION: COMPARING THE UNITED STATES AND THE EUROPEAN UNION” by Blitsa, D, et. al. The paper states:
You can find the paper at http://lsr.nellco.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1541&context=nyu_plltwp. Given that Europe seems to get along fine with such a policy, I would ask why the United States or Canada need each others criminal record information.
I don’t understand the use of “criminals”.
I’ve never met anyone in my life who hasn’t committed criminal acts, whether speeding in a car, drunk driving, etc.
“criminals” are not a class of humans.
Both countries need to stop this. There is simply no reason to ban citizens from visiting the other for misdemeanor criminal activity. It seems absurd that either country is devoting enforcement resources against people who use recreational weed, or had a DUI twenty years ago.
Drunk driving is not a misdemeanour in Canada. It is a federal criminal offence, full stop. Canada is not required to classify crimes according to the more lenient standards used in the US.
What does that have to do with the question at hand? People who are not currently fugitives from the law should be allowed to travel at will.
What does that mean? What sort of penalty is provided for first offense driving under the influence in Canada (assuming no injury or property damage)?
In Ontario, impaired driving carries these consequences. For a first offense over 0.08 BAC:
[ul]
[li]Mandatory alcohol education or treatment program[/li][li] 1 year minimum requirement to drive a car equipped with an ignition interlock device[/li][li] No minimum jail sentence[/li][li] $1,000 fine[/li][li] Licence suspended for 1 year[/li][/ul]