It’s not just Canadians; many Mexicans at land borders, particularly those who are traveling with Border Crossing Cards, don’t get I-94s either. More info here. It’s actually a giant PITA when, for example, years later you need to prove that someone entered the U.S. legally, because, say, they have overstayed their authorized period of admission, are now married to a U.S. citizen, and want to apply for a green card.
If you can’t prove they entered legally, they aren’t eligible in most cases to apply for the green card in the U.S., and if they leave they will incur a 10-year bar from returning because of the overstay. The online I-94 system only goes back 5 years, and you can file a Freedom of Information Act request with CBP for proof, but they may or may not ever respond to you, and the response may or may not include the proof you need. And apparently the border crossing card isn’t enough proof, because lots of people with valid U.S. entry documents decided to sneak in across the Rio Grande instead. :rolleyes:
P.S. for the sake of clarity, Canadians don’t fall outside the I-94 system; they can get electronic I-94s, or paper ones in some circumstances.
Thanks. I have no doubt you’re correct (you said you work in immigration law, right?) but that CBP link was actually the source of the confusion in the first place, since it says:
There’s no mention of “except Canadians and Mexicans” at that CBP link, even though they would presumably form the majority of visitors via land borders. Yet, per what you and all the Canadians on this thread have said, CBP are evidently not issuing paper I-94s to many or most foreign visitors at land borders.
Right, but isn’t that only for Canadians with long-term US residencies based on something like H1-B, F1, J1, or TN visas and the like? In all my travels to the US over many decades for both personal and business reasons (business in the B1 category of a conference or business meeting) I have never, ever even been aware of an I-94 or even heard the term. And for those holding any of those work or student visas, the I-94 would appear to be redundant anyway.
And no, an I-94 is not redundant; it’s required as proof of lawful entry, and depending on the status, entry in the proper status to work if that applies. You also need it for the I-9 form that your employer is required by law to complete when you start a new job if you have a work visa.
Also, folks, don’t forget about all the people who live in Canada (and to a lesser extent, Mexico) who are not Canadian citizens; there are lots of landed immigrants. In fact, Canadians are visa-exempt for all but a couple of immigration statuses, and there used to be a special visa exemption for citizens of British Commonwealth countries who were also Canadian landed immigrants, but that was nixed after 9/11.
Unfortunately there seems to be little “entertainment value” in critical thinking; Our society seems determined to mold people into a Us/Them mindset where all acts are seen as the outcome of intentions. I could think of many possible factors as to how this hairball happened, but we tend to filter out any information that doesn’t match our preconceived ideas… ie “Red-neck speed-trap”, “Hick cop”, etc. etc.
I do not claim to know what happened in this case, but there are some facts that might be relevant:
Georgia State Troopers are severely understaffed and in recent years local police and sheriffs offices have been helping enforce traffic along the interstates and highways. It isn’t unreasonable to assume that mistakes are more likely to happen when professionals are called in to handle tasks outside their normal duties. (If State Troopers filled in for the SWAT team on the weekends, do you think hostage situations might be a bit more hairy?) Not sure that it is relevant in the story, the article was not clear.
I-75 is a MAJOR artery in the distribution network of illegal drugs in the country. They measure yearly drug seizures by the metric ton. I have no idea what officers are told to look for as “suspicious”, but I wouldn’t be surprised if non-citizens without “proper” documentation is on the list. According to the article the arrest happened due to a misunderstanding about where she claimed to live. That seems to indicate that the officer suspected she was being lied to, and you can see where that can lead.
Having said that, I have no idea what happened in this case as the only source of information is a single article with a click-bait title. Could it be bad policing? Sure. Could it be a form of speed trap? Sure. (Just google Georgia Super Speeder law) Then again maybe it is just a case of a rude millennial getting her panties in a wade and mouthing off to a police officer after being busted for breaking the law (which is not in doubt). Who knows…
If she failed to get a required license, then she was driving without a license. How is that **not **a concern in Georgia…or Florida…or Tennessee…or anywhere else someone commits a driving violation?
You seem to be arguing that a Georgia police officer was attempting to enforce a Tennessee law. That is incorrect. The officer was enforcing Georgia law, which requires a driver to hold a valid driver’s license to operate a motor vehicle. Whatever other factors exist about this, the officer is not in the wrong on that point.
There has been no denial by the Georgia authorities, and the court has allegedly dropped all charges.
Plus, let’s assume (purely for the sake of argument) she was “… a rude millennial getting her panties in a wade and mouthing off to a police officer after being busted for breaking the law …”, even though, so far, there’s exactly no evidence to support that.
Does being rude and annoying a cop JUSTIFY that cop then charging someone for a crime they knew or ought to have known has not, in fact, occurred?
Ignorance of the law isn’t an excuse for ordinary people who aren’t tasked with enforcing it - how can it possibly be an excuse for a cop, who is?
The correct response ought to be ‘mistakes were made, we unreservedly apologize, and will implement better training to ensure it won’t happen again’.
She HAD a valid license. A Canadian license, which is valid in Georgia.
Georgia law, as posted upthread, only recognizes two situations for non-US citizens:
A foreigner passing through. Needs a valid foreign license. Which this person had.
A person who has established residency in Georgia (stays for 30 days, goes to school, works, etc.). Need a Georgia license.
There is no circumstance under which a Georgia cop needs to see a foreigner having a Tennessee license.
Nor, in fact, did this cop ask for one. She asked the Canadian to produce a Canadian passport, to validate the Canadian license. Which is not, in fact, a requirement under Georgia law! Georgia’s own website makes this abundantly clear.
If you saw someone post the following, what would be YOUR reaction?
“Have you see the movie ‘Casino’? Anyone else think just avoiding Nevada might be a good idea?”
I’m just saying, there are a lot better reasons to ‘avoid Georgia’ than isolated traffic stops. Like mosquitoes. Mosquitoes are annoying. And high humidity. While they may not be **good **reasons to avoid a state, they are still **better **reasons. My $.02
Why would the authorities deny it? I assume you misread my post; My point was that the driver exceeded the posted limit, which is why she was pulled over in the first place. All events that take place after stem from that.
And I did not imply that the driver was at fault for the arrest…I said it was as possible and at least as plausible as assuming police corruption and/or ineptitude.
Lastly, the driver was arrested on the suspicionof driving without a valid license. That suspicion seems to have arisen from miscommunication on both sides. In the end the case was dismissed on those grounds.
And I did not imply that the driver was at fault for the arrest…I said it was as possible and at least as plausible as assuming police corruption and/or ineptitude.
Lastly, the driver was arrested on the suspicionof driving without a valid license. That suspicion seems to have arisen from miscommunication on both sides. In the end the case was dismissed on those grounds. I see no ignorance on the part of the officer when acting upon bad information given to her.
The driver told the officer she “lived in Tennessee”. (The article specifically states this as the miscommunication that produced the arrest.). If a foreigner takes up residency in Georgia for 30 days, they need a GA license. (#2 Above) The same is true in Tennessee. If she “lived in Tennessee” as she told the officer, then she needed a license issued there…which she did not possess. (This is the circumstance under which a Georgia cop needs to see a foreigner having a Tennessee license.) The driver DID have a Canadian license, which is all she would have needed…if she stated she lived in Canada. But that isn’t what she said. Even THEN the officer did not immediately arrest the driver; She asked to see the driver’s passport…which is the documentation she would have had to possess, along with her Canadian license, to obtain an official ID. In effect the officer would have given the driver a pass on not having an Tenn license if the driver could prove that she was eligible to have obtained it. But the driver did not have the documentation.
The driver broke the speed limit. (Strike one) The driver did not have the license she was required to have as a resident of Tenn. (Strike two) The driver did not have the documentation to show that she was could have obtained the license that she was legally required to have as a resident of Tenn. (Strike three.)
The “miscommunication” on the side of the cop was the demand to see a hardcopy passport.
Given that a passport isn’t actually a requirement to verify a driver’s license (and an Ontario driver’s license, being a formidable piece of ID, is difficult to fake), that “miscommunication” = ignorance of the what the law requires.
This seems irrefutable. What am I missing here?
Second, I’m merely pointing out that *even if the lady in question was some millennial mouthing off[I/], a possibility raised by you, this would not justify bringing a legally incorrect charge. Doing so is incompetent at best, an abuse of power at worst.
In fact, the best outcome in all this is that the cop was merely mistaken. Mistakes happen, I can understand that. Being a cop is a stressful job, and all that.
Though when they do, it is incumbent on the cops to apologize properly for them. If they don’t, it creates an even worse impression than making the mistake in the first place.
The only part of this that is correct is that she was speeding.
There is absolutely nothing in the Georgia law that [I[requires* a non-citizen, who resided in another state, to produce a driver’s license from that other state!
At least, according to Georgia’s own published guidelines, which I reproduced and linked to above. Not a single mention of that. Here it is again:
You would think that if Georgia wanted to impose a requirement that a foreigner, resident in an other US state but not a US citizen, had to have a local state license from that other state while driving in Georgia, they would say as much in the information helpfully labeled “Information for Non-US Citizens”.
But they don’t, and with good reason: local requirements vary by state, so such a requirement would be unduly complex. Georgia cops can’t it appears, be expected to know Georgia law - how are they supposed to know the law of every state in the union on this point?
If you are a foreigner, as it quite clearly states in the above link, you must have either (1) a valid foreign license, or (2) a local Georgia license, if resident there.
The same guidance again clearly states that “… a law officer may consult such person’s passport or visa to verify the validity of such license, if available.”
The words “may” and “if available” do not mean “shall” and “must have on person at all times”. They just don’t.
I refer you to the article, quoting the officer as allegedly saying “No, Canadian licences are not accepted” over and over again. Does that sound like a thorough understanding of the licensing and residency laws in Tennessee, or does that sound like an outright falsehood uttered by an overreacting local yokel lacking two brain cells to rub together?
I would answer that Casino is just a movie, while this was a real-life event getting international attention mainly for its appalling stupidity. I would also point you to the comment in my post #80 from another Georgia resident, regarding the history of entrapment of tourists by the local yokels right in that area who are unfortunately currently allowed to enforce traffic laws on the interstate.
Anyone arrested for anything is cited for “suspicion” of something, and it remains a suspicion until conviction or acquittal. You have no argument here, as the point is whether the “suspicion” had any reasonable justification sufficient to support an arrest.
Let’s get this straight. This was a minor traffic offense that escalated beyond all bounds of reason, requiring the courts, the prosecutor’s office, and the victim’s lawyer to expend a lot of time and effort in unusual measures to undo everything that had happened – a sequence of events that had been entirely precipitated by an idiotic cop and no one else – with the prosecutor’s office admitting that it had all got out of hand. As I said in another post, I’ve never heard of anything like that happening in Ontario to any American driver, but I’ve heard of the opposite – where they were just let off with a warning out of consideration for being a visitor. Maybe that’s what you should be focused on instead of trying to defend those for whom I’m now starting to think “yokels” is too kind a term.
If you (a Canadian citizen) move to Georgia to attend grad school, then, as a new resident of Georgia, you would be required by law to obtain a Georgia State Drivers license after 30 days. You can drive in GA as a visitor on a Canadian license, but you cannot live as a resident and drive on a Canadian license. I trust you understand that part?
Imagine I went to grad school in Ontario and the law says I have to obtain a Canadian driver’s license after 30 days or I am driving without a LEGAL permit. If I get a speeding ticket and they find out I have been living in Ontario for a year but don’t have a Canadian driver’s license, what will happen? I will get in trouble for that, right? If instead I was travelling and given a speeding ticket in Toronto and when they said, “where do you live” and I told them I live in Ontario…they are going to want to see my driver’s license issued in Ontario, right? If I don’t have one, then I will get in trouble for driving in Canada without a valid Canadian license.
Suppose the young lady is an American, originally from New York, and she holds a valid New York driving license, which she presents to the Georgia cop. The cop talks to her, and she tells the cop that she is a student has been living in Tennessee for 6 months. Could the Georgia cop arrest her for not having a valid license? If so, what exactly would the charge be?
IANAL, but I’m skeptical that a Georgia cop can arrest someone for breaking a Tennessee law (but no Georgia law), based solely on the Georgia cop’s suspicion. If someone breaks a serious Tennessee law and flees, isn’t the process for Tennessee to issue some kind of warrant?