Read this if you are going to Canada...

[Luv2play]

>.

>I hate to have to say it, but Canada just doesn't have any

>sights which are so incredible as to have to beg to see them.

The only reason so many Americans visit

>Canada is because it's convenient--not because Montreal

>compares in any way to Paris,

 

Well, I'm not going to attempt to list Canada's beauty spots, and there are many, but for a gay man who appreciates the male form presented naked and up close, nothing Paris has to offer beats Montreal male stripper bars. And we have four, count 'em, FOUR, all within an easy stroll from where I live. Who can beat it??? }(

[Guest]

>>I hate to have to say it, but Canada just doesn't have any

>>sights which are so incredible as to have to beg to see them.

>

>>They don't have the Taj Mahal, Great Wall of China, the

>Great

>>Pyramids, the Grand Canyon, Iguassu Falls, Rio, or Venice.

>

>I think you are missing the point here. The article that was

>originally quoted stated that although Canada is the one

>enforceing the policy at this time, it is only a matter of

>time before most other countries will be on the same system

>with the same policies. So whether or not you think Canada's

>natural wonders, worthy of the inconvenience, you are not

>going to be able to see the sights of Paris or Japan (to name

>just a couple) if you have any convictions on your record.

>

It remains to be seen whether other countries will follow suit. The only one I can see doing so is Japan (a rather foreign-phobic culture).

 

>>I forwarded that article to, among others, my law-and-order

>>brother who called the policy "incredibly stupid," and my

>>Canadian-born step-mother who also felt the policy to be

>>unwise at best.

>

>It may very well be "incredibly stupid" but it is also

>impossible to gain entry into the US if you have a conviction

>on your record. Now - is that "incredibly stupid" or do you

>think it is incredibly prudent?

>

I think it's incredibly stupid. I can only hope that the next U.S. president will undo a lot of the asinine things Bush Jr. has done. I think our current president may be the worst president this country has ever had. I believe his policies have trashed our country, and can only hope that much of it will be repaired.

 

>>The only reason so many Americans visit

>>Canada is because it's convenient--not because Montreal

>>compares in any way to Paris, or Ottawa to London.

>

>Now that's just plain dumb. Why would anyone visit someplace

>just because it's convenient, if their wasn't something of

>interest there?

It's not that there aren't things of interest--just nothing incredibly outstanding.

[Rick Munroe]

>Is it a stripper bar? :+

 

Such a smartass reply! Who do you think you are ~ me?

[Guest]

I didn't want to say it, but Canada does have the best strip bars in the world. I haven't found any to match those of Montreal or Toronto (or even Quebec City). In my opinion, it's truly Canada's greatest contribution to world culture! :9

[Guest Merlin]

A huge share of Canada's tourist money comes from fishing and hunting, and most lodges could not exist without American money. They spend a thousand or two each and hire local Native Americans as guides. Canada has for years prohibited guys with criminal records, but without requiring passports and without access to American criminal records, the prohibition did not exclude many. That apparantly is changing, and it will have a profound negative effect on many people and communities in Canada. I think they will be forced to ease the rules. They could, for instance, allow those with DUI convictions, but with the stipulation that they must not drive.

[Guest zipperzone]

>A huge share of Canada's tourist money comes from fishing and

>hunting, and most lodges could not exist without American

>money.

 

Now where in hell did you dig up this statistic? Or is it just a figment of your imagination?

 

 

>I think they will be forced to ease the rules. They

>could, for instance, allow those with DUI convictions, but

>with the stipulation that they must not drive.

 

It would make more sense to ignore convictions that are older tham 10 years.

[+ deej]

>It would make more sense to ignore convictions that are older

>tham 10 years.

 

But Canada doesn't do that, and it doesn't take a conviction.

 

I had issues on a business trip 20 years ago (SCREW NAFTA!) and to this day it always takes 3 hours for me to clear Canadian immigration on entry.

 

You can probably imagine how anxious I am to visit Canada again. Ever.

[Guest ncm2169]

Pardon my ignorance, but if you're an American with a prior minor (or otherwise) conviction, can you still obtain a passport?

 

If so, is that sufficient to enter Canada, or do the Canadians do their own "background check?"

[Guest]

Having a prior conviction won't prevent you from getting a U.S. passport (as long as there isn't a court order preventing you from leaving the U.S., for instance), but each country has the right to admit whomever it wants. Their rules don't have to be logical. For example, Canada has nothing to gain by excluding someone with a prior marijuana conviction, but they have every right to do so. What would be more sensible would be to search the luggage more carefully of someone with a history of prior drug use. However, once the person is in the country, they're not going to harm a Canadian even if they decide to obtain marijuana while they're there.

To find out whether a prior conviction would make you inadmissible to any particular country, you would have to look at that country's consular website. Of course, even if you were theoretically inadmissible, the rules might not be enforced. Prior to this discussion, I've never heard of countries shooting themselves in the foot like the U.S. and Canada apparently are. Some countries even welcome criminals openly--the important thing is that you bring in cash and obey the laws of the host country (Switzerland and Brazil come to mind). Of course, the logical policy is to exclude those who are a security risk or at risk for overstaying their visas, which is why many richer countries will do background checks and questioning of visitors from high-risk countries (which makes a lot more sense).

[Guest zipperzone]

>>It would make more sense to ignore convictions that are

>older

>>tham 10 years.

>

>But Canada doesn't do that, and it doesn't take a conviction.

 

I KNOW we don't. I just said it would make sense - something that is often in short supply in Ottawa.

 

What do you mean by "it doesn't take a conviction"? If there was no conviction, how could something show on your record?

[+ deej]

>What do you mean by "it doesn't take a conviction"? If there

>was no conviction, how could something show on your record?

 

In my case, I've never been convicted of anything.

 

I *have* been denied entry to Canada (and got the paper to prove it).

 

I got in, but 20 years later it's still on my record.

[Luv2play]

I don't think it's completely accurate to say that Switzerland "welcomes criminals" although they may well grant entry to someone who is guilty of a criminal offense in their country of origin that is not considered a crime in Switzerland, such as tax evasion. As I recall, Switzerland has fewer "economic" crimes than many other western countries. That's why it's so popular with economic refugees (the low taxes and pleasant surroundings don't hurt either!). Actually, the most serious economic "crime" in Switzerland is to be poor! :o