Posts Tagged ‘Canada’

« Older Entries

U.S.-Canada Preclearance Agreement In Effect

Friday, August 16th, 2019 by W. Scott Railton

The Department of Homeland Security announced this week that a preclearance agreement is now in effect with Canada. This basically means that major Canadian airports will be on equal footing with land port of entries, legally speaking.

Expedited removal is now a tool airport CBP inspectors can use to find Canadians inadmissible and banned for five years, in cases of fraud and unlawful immigrant intent. Previously, this type of removal –basically a legal fiction with real impacts for someone not in the U.S.—only occured to someone presenting themselves for admission at a land port of entry, or when illegally seeking entry outside a port.

There is very limited recourse for an expedited removal order. In clear cases of error, sometimes they can be overturned. There is also a waiver process, but this usually works best after some time has passed. The criticism of expedited removal is it leaves no real route for appeal: CBP can be judge, jury, and executioner, so to speak, when they apply this measure. Sometimes agents have been known to be a bit too zealous in lowering this boom.

When I testified in the Canadian Senate in 2018 on marijuana legalization, some Senators had new reservations about their passage of the preclearance bill. There have been situations, particularly where someone has already been denied entry once, where I’ve felt better having them seek entry anew at an airport than at a land port of entry, just so expedited removal is not a consideration.

The preclearance rule will also possibly lead to joint operations at smaller ports of entry, such as can be found in rural border crossings. This can save money and lead to efficiencies, though one has to wonder about the sharing of information.

Here is the full announcement:

United States and Canada Implement Preclearance Agreement
Release Date:
August 15, 2019

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced today, in partnership with the Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, the implementation of an agreement to improve mutual security and expedite lawful travel through preclearance for travelers and their accompanying baggage on certain transports. The collaboration is articulated in the Agreement on Land, Rail, Marine, and Air (LRMA) Transport Preclearance between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada, which supersedes the previous 2001 U.S.-Canada Agreement on Air Transport Preclearance, and expands upon the two countries’ partnership.

Preclearance is the process by which officers stationed abroad inspect and make admissibility decisions about travelers and their accompanying baggage before they leave a foreign port, simultaneously increasing efficiency and security. The LRMA provides the legal framework and reciprocal authorities necessary for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Canada Border Services Agency to carry out security, facilitation, and inspection processes in the other country.

“Preclearance strengthens economic competitiveness and mutual security, and benefits travelers by expediting their clearance into the U.S. before they ever leave Canada,” said Acting Secretary Kevin K. McAleenan. “This agreement provides the opportunity for CBP to build on six decades of successful operations and, for the first time, to conduct full preclearance in the rail, ferry, and cruise ship environments. This achievement is important for the Department’s security objectives and is another example of just how close the U.S. – Canada relationship stands.”

CBP currently conducts preclearance operations at eight Canadian airports: Calgary, Edmonton, Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Vancouver, and Winnipeg. CBP officers also conduct immigration pre-inspection at multiple locations in British Columbia in the rail and marine modes; these locations will have the opportunity to convert to full preclearance, per the terms of the Agreement.

“The new Canada–U.S. Preclearance Agreement is now in force, creating new opportunities in all modes of transportation in both Canada and the United States,” said the Honourable Ralph Goodale, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. “Expanding preclearance makes travel faster and bolsters trade, while better protecting our rights.”

As the Agreement is fully reciprocal, in addition to the potential expansion of CBP preclearance operations in Canada, the Agreement permits Canada to pursue preclearance operations in the United States. This agreement also enables exploration of co-location at small and remote ports of entry and includes additional tools and authorities to help enforce immigration, customs, and agriculture laws, facilitate lawful travel, and ensure officer protection and accountability.

The LRMA was signed by the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security and Canadian Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness on March 16, 2015, fulfilling a commitment of the Beyond the Border Action Plan (Beyond the Border Action Plan). The U.S. Congress passed the necessary supporting legislation in December 2016 and Canada’s Parliament did so in December 2017. Canada published their required implementing regulations in June 2019, paving the way for entry into force following an exchange of Diplomatic Notes today.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in General, Marijuana and Immigration, Scott Railton |

Expanded Use of Expedited Removal

Tuesday, July 30th, 2019 by W. Scott Railton

Last week the Administration announced it is expanding the use of expedited removal. Expedited removal is a form of deportation which does not require an administrative hearing or other judicial review. Authorized by section 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, expedited removal allows CBP and ICE agents to deport persons who enter or seek to enter the United States without proper documents or by fraud. The “expedited” part of the removal basically means that low-level officers in the government can make a decision on removal, without review by a judge.

Expedited removal has been available in certain cases since 1997. This most recent expansion of policy applies to noncitizens, anywhere in the United States, if they cannot prove continuous physical presence for the past two years. Previously, the time frame was 14 days and the geographic area was limited to within 100 miles of the Canadian and Mexican borders. Unaccompanied minors are not impacted by the new rule, and persons can still claim relief if they can articulate a credible fear of return to their home country.

Most of the news about this policy has focused on undocumented who are inside the United States. Many are advising that undocumented persons gather up evidence to prove they’ve been in the United States for more than two years, in case they encounter an ICE agent. Such preparations may be sufficient to satisfy an officer, on the spot, that expedited removal is not available.

Most of our expedited removal cases arise at the U.S.-Canada border, where there are misrepresentations while seeking entry. We expect to see expedited removal to be used more frequently locally, in light of the Administration’s announcement. The typical case is one where someone says they are seeking entry for one purpose, when in fact they are seeking entry for another purpose, or several unrelated purposes.

The application of a fraud finding can be complicated sometimes, because there are sins of commission and omission. I expect the border will be taking a more expansive view of what constitutes fraud, in the exercise of its expedited removal powers. The trouble with this is there is no administrative or judicial review of such a decision.

If a person is placed in expedited removal, they are barred from seeking re-entry for at least five years, unless they obtain the consent of the U.S. government to seek entry again. There are nonimmigrant waivers available, but the likelihood of success of an application will depend on the merits of the application. There are substantial fees and a processing times to consider as well.

Sometimes it is possible to challenge the actual expedited removal order, through communications with agency leadership. Make no mistake—that is usually a tough road—but I supervisors will reconsider a matter, if a decision is clearly erroneous.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in General, Marijuana and Immigration, Scott Railton |

CBP Halts L-1 Extensions and Renewals at Ports of Entry

Friday, April 12th, 2019 by W. Scott Railton

I doubt you’ll find this written on any government website, but U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has decided to stop adjudicating extensions and renewals of L-1 status for Canadians at Ports of Entry and Pre-Flight Inspection.  The agency’s position is these applications must be filed at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). “L-1 status” refers to intracompany work and stay authorization for executives, managers, and employees with specialized knowledge.

We first heard this news via attorney meetings with the agency. Specifically:

QUESTION:  How are Canadian L-1 extensions treated at the border? Must intermittent L-1 applicants also apply for an L-1 extension with USCIS?

 ANSWER: CBP officers shall not approve any requests for extension of stay or renew petitions for L-1 nonimmigrants; those requests will be reviewed and approved by USCIS exclusively for all nationalities.

This important policy change is nowhere to be found on the agency’s website, unsurprisingly. We hear though that the policy is being implemented. One officer is said to have told an individual, “Spread the word.” By all appearances, CBP wants to stop adjudicating immigration benefits, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services wants to take this responsibility over.

This is bad news, even if it hasn’t actually made the news. For decades, Canadian businesses have been able to present applications at the border, and receive on-the-spot adjudications. A lot of Canadian executives and managers travel back and forth, and live in Canada.  USCIS is painfully slow in adjudicating applications, although it is possible to pay for “premium processing” and receive initial adjudication in 15 days, for $1410 USD.  Of course, that’s not as good as on-the-spot adjudication, for the base application fee, which Canadian businesses now can receive. L-1 extensions for Canadians will only be adjudicated so fast now, and USCIS has become justifiably notorious for issuing lengthy requests for evidence, which bury employers in paperwork.

The United States government seems committed to making immigration harder, when it should be going for smarter.  L-1 holders are typically job creators, adding value to the U.S. economy. By definition, an executive or manager is presiding over many more workers. The U.S. should be making it easier for Canadian businesses and their executive management teams to do business stateside.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in General, Scott Railton |

Canada’s Cannabis Act and U.S. Inadmissibility

Friday, September 21st, 2018 by W. Scott Railton

Canada’s Cannabis Act, otherwise called Bill C-45, legalizes cannabis nationally on October 17th. The starting point for all U.S. border issues is the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act. With that in mind, I’ve put together a list below of the key provisions of the INA concerning marijuana and inadmissibility.

I. Criminality Related Grounds

A. Personal:

a.) A past conviction related to cannabis [INA § 212(a)(2)(A)(II)];
b.) Admitting to committing a violation of any law or regulation of a foreign country related to controlled substances [INA § 212(a)(2)(A)(II)];
c.) Admitting to committing acts which constitute the essential elements of any law or regulation of a foreign country related to controlled substances [INA § 212(a)(2)(A)(II)];

Note: Cannabis on person/in car: this is a Customs violation, likely warranting a fine and further questions. Not typically referred for prosecution, though a violation of the Controlled Substance Act. Waiver usually required thereafter. Also, note, cannabis may also be involved in crimes involving moral turpitude, a separate basis of inadmissibility.

B. Illicit Trafficking (“Reason to Believe”: no conviction required)

d.) Where the U.S. Government knows or has “reason to believe” (no conviction required) is an illicit trafficker, or who is or has been a knowing aider, abettor, assister, conspirator or colluder with others who are in illicit trafficking [INA § 212(a)(2)(C)(i)];

e.) A spouse, son or daughter of an illicit trafficker, who has received financial or other benefit from the illicit trafficking in the past five years, and knew or reasonably should have known that the financial or other benefit was a product of such illicit activity. [INA § 212(a)(2)(C)(ii)];

II. Health related grounds (“Drug abuser/Drug Addict”; “Physical/Mental Disorder”)

f.) A determination that a noncitizen is a drug abuser or drug addict, in accordance with regulations prescribed by Health and Human Services [INA § 212(a)(1)(A)(iv)];

g.) A determination that a noncitizen has a physical or mental disorder and behavior/ history of behavior posing threat to property, safety or welfare of others [INA § 212(a)(1)(A)(iii)(I and II)]

• Panel physician – have to pay government certified physician for exam
• CDC Technical Instructions requires 1 year of remission

III. National Security- (Unlawful purpose)

h.) Seeking entry principally or incidentally for an unlawful activity [INA § 212(a)(3)(ii)];

IV. Misrepresentation/Fraud

i.) Fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact in pursuit of an immigration benefit [INA § 212(a)(6)(C)].

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in General, Scott Railton |

L-1 Pilot Program Coming to Peace Arch and Pacific Highway Crossings

Thursday, March 29th, 2018 by W. Scott Railton

The Peace Arch and Pacific Highway Crossing in Blaine, Washington are implementing a “Pilot Program” for L-1 Intracompany Transfer petitions, beginning on or about April 30th. L-1 Intracompany transfers are employees who are Executives, Managers, or employees with specialized knowledge who are transferred from a commonly owned foreign company to a U.S. company. For decades, Canadian beneficiaries of L-1 petitions have been permitted to submit their applications at Class A Port of Entries, and receive immediate adjudication. The Pilot Program, while introduced with promises of efficiencies, threatens a long-standing benefit for Canadian businesses.

On Monday, I attended a briefing session on a Form I-129 Pilot Program for Canadian L Nonimmigrants Pilot Program, held at the Peace Arch. The briefing was hosted jointly by U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and was led principally by USCIS Director L. Francis Cissna. The meeting was attended by more than a dozen officials of CBP, USCIS, and about ten attorneys representing stakeholders. The meeting was open to phone participants as well.

Director Cissna said that the stated intention of the L Pilot Program is to try to move Port of Entry adjudications out of CBP’s hands and into USCIS’s hands. Director Cissna views this work as USCIS work, since it involves immigration benefits. CBP doesn’t seem happy with the function (my observation), as they consider themselves an enforcement agency first and foremost. There were indications that if the Pilot Program works, perhaps TN adjudications can be handled on the same process.

Under the Pilot Program, the petitioning company will send the petition to USCIS with a special cover sheet. USCIS will then try to adjudicate the applications with the cover sheet “super fast…faster than premium processing,” in an effort to provide adjudication service similar to what is now available at the Port of Entry for Canadians. Approvals and Requests for Evidence will be sent to employers directly. While USCIS says it would be best to wait for the approval, Applicants can go down to the Port of Entry with just a receipt notice, and granted admission if the matter is adjudicated favorably. This was all described as “good organizational management.”

The goal is to launch the program at the Peace Arch and the Pacific Highway by April 30th, and then test run the program for 6 months. If it works, they’ll look at expansion to other northern ports of entry, and may need to commence the public notice and comment processes required under the Administrative Procedures Act.

The Pilot Program is exclusive to Blaine, and so Canadian applicants who want immediate Port of Entry adjudication may still go to other Port of Entries. The process will be mandatory for Canadians at the Peace Arch and Pacific Highway. The process includes L blankets. The California Service Center is the designated USCIS service center for adjudication.

Some interesting statistics were mentioned during the meeting. We were told there are about 6200 Canadian L petitions submitted each year, which is about one-sixth of the overall total. The Blaine POEs are not handling too many per week now. One person said about half a dozen; another said about 50 per month. Issues raised by attorneys included the Request for Evidence rate at the USCIS Service Centers, which is very high; as well as the benefit from instant adjudication at the Port of Entry v. the issues in presenting a petition there sometimes.

This could end up being a step back for Canadian businesses who may clearly qualify and benefit from on-the-spot adjudication. There was a time when port of entry adjudication was a pretty quick process, and this method of application really helped Canadian businesses quickly get the people they need into the U.S. temporarily. USCIS has created a whole lot of red tape for legitimate businesses in recent years, and this presents another opportunity for government delays. A more favorable view of the program is that this allows pre-adjudication by USCIS of petitions, at a rate faster than Premium Processing’s fee based 15 day guarantee.

If its not obvious, I am skeptical about the Pilot Program. In the big picture, this Administration is taking every step it can to cut legal immigration, in addition to its focus on illegal immigration. There are some in the Administration who only want to “put a pause” on immigration, and seem to have decided that most if not all immigration is bad. The L visa is a poor target, as the visa is dedicated to executives and managers—people who typically create jobs, which leads to a healthier U.S. economy.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in General, Scott Railton |

Mission Canada Makes Administrative Changes to E Visa Process

Saturday, December 16th, 2017 by W. Scott Railton

Every so often, Consulates change their administrative procedures for handling E-1 Trader and E-2 Investor Visas. Mission Canada recently announced certain changes, effective December 5th, 2017. Most notably, initial applications will be reviewed during a ten business day period, after which an interview may be scheduled. It is possible that this change may slow down the actual processing timeline, but time will tell.

Here’s the message from Mission Canada:

We are pleased to inform you that our unit has implemented a new, streamlined E-visa application process for first time E visa applicants and applicants renewing their E visas. Our new online appointment system, processing change will allow us to receive and review E-visa applications before the applicant schedules an in-person interview (as opposed to the old system, which permitted applicants to schedule an appointment before submitting an application or supporting documentation). We anticipate that the new system will speed up processing time and help us provide better customer service to you and your clients.

Under the new system, E-visa applications will be sorted into two processing streams based on the time needed to review the required documentation.

• New Cases and Renewals – First-time applicants and those wishing to renew the registration status of their E-visa company will be offered a “deferred interview” appointment. While applicants will still need to first create an appointment profile and pay the required visa application fee online at https://ais.usvisa-info.com, the interview will be deferred until applicants have electronically submitted their application and supporting documents to the U.S. Consulate in Toronto via evisacanada@state.gov. Once their application has been reviewed, which requires at least 10 business days, we will send applicants instructions on how to make an appointment for an in-person interview. Applicants will be unable to schedule an appointment until then. Only applications in the queue for “New Cases and Renewals” will be considered for company registration or re-registration.

• Employees of Registered Companies and Dependents – Employees of currently registered E-visa companies, and qualifying family members of current E-visa holders, may schedule the next available appointment in Calgary, Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver or Toronto.

For more information please visit our website listed below:

https://ca.usembassy.gov/visas/treaty-trader-and-investor-visas/

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in General, Scott Railton |

Increase in Expedited Removals at the Northern Border

Friday, December 8th, 2017 by W. Scott Railton

We are seeing an increase in expedited removals at the border in recent months. This is to be expected, based on the Trump Administration’s Executive Orders on immigration and the subsequent memos issued by the Department of Homeland Security on implementing these orders.

Expedited removal is authorized under section 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. If an officer determines a person has made a material misrepresentation, claimed citizenship falsely, or doesn’t have the appropriate documentation to enter the U.S., an expedited removal may be effectuated. Typically, we’re seeing a five year ban applied

Expedited removal usually occurs after a lengthy interview with multiple officers in secondary inspection. We’ve heard of persons interviewed on and off for four to eight hours, though eight would be unusual.

Electronic searches of phones and computers are increasingly a part of the inspection. Officers will ask questions and look for contradictions. Often, we see statements where people admit to misrepresentations, offered originally in hopes of more easily gaining entry.

Sometimes expedited removals are issued because the agency finds the applicant for admission to be an immigrant without an immigrant visa. This type of determination often happens when they learn someone has been working without authorization in the United States, or the person is seeking admission so that they can live with their spouse, perhaps with the expressed intent of “squaring away” their immigration papers later.

Expedited removal orders are tough to overturn.

The statute expressly makes the determinations beyond judicial review—that means you cannot go to court and get a judge to change the decision. Sometimes, if the order in manifestly incorrect or unfair, it is possible to take the issue up with a supervisor after the fact. Otherwise, the best available path is waivers.

The waiver process varies based on several factors, and can be complicated, lengthy, and expensive. In a nutshell, the availability of waivers depends on if permanent residence is sought, or something less permanent. Procedurally, there are differences in process for Canadians and non-Canadians. Anyone with an expedited removal order should not approach the border without legal advice and obtaining consent to reapply for admission first, as there is risk of criminal penalty.

Recovering from an expedited removal order can take time. Each case is different. We are of course available to advise on expedited removals and similar border issues, and have been doing so for many years.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in General, Scott Railton |

Staying Admissible To The United States

Friday, July 28th, 2017 by W. Scott Railton

We frequently meet with Canadians and other nationals who are concerned about their admissibility to the United States. We also advise Canadian defense attorneys about the consequences of a plea or conviction on United States admissibility. Frequently, persons arrive at the border, seeking entry, only to learn that they are inadmissible (or so the government says), and that they will need a waiver.

Here are some tips on admissibility issues, from my perspective as an immigration attorney:

1. Foreign pardons and expungements do not typically help with U.S. immigration. A conviction vacated for substantive reasons might overcome inadmissibility.

2. The sealing of criminal records can present an obstacle for U.S. immigration purposes, as the burden of proof for admissibility is upon the applicant. The U.S. government will want to see those records, even if they’re under seal.

3. Temporary visitor waivers are available, but they are costly and take months to adjudicate, and must be renewed every five years. Permanent waivers for immigrants are more challenging, but are sometimes available, depending on the past offense.

4. The definition of a conviction under U.S. immigration law includes more than just convictions. Admissions of guilt in the record may count too.

5. Any conviction “related to” controlled substances is a basis for inadmissibility. U.S. immigration law is particularly hard on all controlled substances issues. Marijuana is still considered a controlled substance under federal (national) law, even though many states have legalized.

6. Drug abuse, drug addiction, and alcohol abuse are bases for inadmissibility without a conviction. When applicable, the U.S. Government may require an expert opinion from a U.S. authorized civil surgeon on whether a person is a drug or alcohol abuser prior to admission to the United States.

7. A person is inadmissible if the government has a “reason to believe” that she is or has been a drug trafficker.

8. In general, sentences of less than a year are better (e.g. 364 days or less) to avoid the possibility of having a conviction deemed an “aggravated felony” under U.S. immigration law.

9. Misrepresentation at the border is a basis for a lifetime ban from the U.S. They may search the phone or computer, interview friends and employers, and otherwise double-check to see if someone is lying. Lifetime ban if they make that determination, which in time can be overcome through the waiver process.

10. The U.S. law on inadmissibility is a complicated area of law even for U.S. lawyers, including U.S. immigration lawyers. If there are concerns, it is best to consult with us, or someone like us. If worse comes to worse, it may be better to stop answering questions, and ask to withdraw the application for admission.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in General, Scott Railton |

Marijuana and the Border

Friday, April 21st, 2017 by W. Scott Railton

Today is April 20th, or 4-20, as marijuana legalization proponents like to say. More than half of the states have passed some form of legalization, usually by popular vote. Eight states have legalized recreational marijuana, again by popular vote. It is an astounding development in my lifetime, as the concept of legalization was quite radical little more than two decades ago.

I’ve been interested in how state legalization impacts noncitizens, since immigration is my area of law practice. Washington State and Colorado were the first to legalize recreational marijuana, back in 2012, and I knew this would present issues at the border, eventually. It seems now the issues are also coming up at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Department of State’s consulates abroad.

I periodically speak and write on this topic.  I am very pleased to say that this month the American Bar Association published an article I wrote, entitled “Marijuana and Immigration,” in its Criminal Justice magazine. I also received a Freedom of Information Act request back this past week, from USCIS, on its policies concerning legalized marijuana. The pdf is over 1700 pages, but 1500 pages or so are redacted. We will appeal.

The issues continue to develop, and, unfortunately, most of the news is not good for noncitizens. DHS Secretary Kelly and Attorney General Sessions say they want to crack down on marijuana. The specifics are lacking, but I am hearing some tough reports. These include:

-Adjustment of status applications being denied for spouses of U.S. citizens, because they worked for marijuana dispensary in a marijuana-legal state.

-Naturalization application denied to a permanent resident of over 10 years, because they worked in the marijuana industry in Colorado, a fully legalized state

-Denial of entry in many cases to the U.S., for admitting to having used marijuana at some undisclosed point in the past, in a foreign or U.S. jurisdiction where it was known to be illegal. No conviction is required–just a voluntary admission to a border officer, medical examiner, consular official, or other government worker. A lot of people, including former presidents, have admitted to as much in the past, and publicly. Once denied admission, a waiver must be obtained from CBP’s Admissibility Review Office, for life. Canadians have a $585 filing fee. The waiver takes months to adjudicate.

-More bad news: reportedly, they are not necessarily going to grant the waiver. We’ve just started to hear of denials for these types of circumstances.

-Also, the word on the west coast is the local ports of entry will not admit anyone working in the industry. Of course, this means accountants, who may also have other non-marijuana clients; scientists who need to test products; architects for greenhouses; and the list of professionals can go on. This is of course a multi-million dollar industry, which indeed, pays taxes, even if the standard deductions aren’t available.

-I don’t expect Consulates to issue investor visas for the industry.

The federal government is anything but transparent on these issues. The state governments need to get vocal, and force the issues, so that travel and business can be predictable. Legislators in legalized states need to fight for these businesses and opportunities, because right now at the administrative level, things are not going well for the industry or noncitizens. There is a basic lack of justice and fairness, as persons think they are ok by being truthful and are in compliance with state laws, but the federal government is playing “gotcha” with good people.

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in General, Scott Railton |

Second Monday in October: Lots to Celebrate

Monday, October 24th, 2016 by Abtin Bahador

The second Monday in October means many things to many people.

In Canada, it is a day for turkey, and explaining to your American friends on social media that Canada has its own Thanksgiving. In America, it depends on what part of the country you reside. Some places continue to celebrate Columbus Day, while other parts of the U.S., including Washington State, are increasingly celebrating Indigenous Peoples’ Day.

In 2015, the Bellingham city council officially declared the second Monday in October as Coast Salish Day. The Coast Salish people are a grouping of many tribes with numerous distinct cultures and languages. Their traditional territories included metropolitan areas including Victoria, Vancouver, and Seattle. Territory claimed by the Coast Salish peoples spanned from Vancouver Island, most of Puget Sound and the Olympic Peninsula and as far south as Oregon.

With the colonization of the Americas, the British and American governments enacted arbitrary borders, and separated many indigenous people from their ancestral lands. The U.S. and British recognized that Native Americans had been separated by the newly created border, and negotiated the Jay Treaty in part to mitigate tensions with Native peoples whose lands were bisected by the recently established borders.

Article III of the Jay Treaty thus gave native peoples the right to freely access the United States. This provision of the Jay Treaty has been included in the U.S. and Immigration Nationality Act at §289:

“Nothing in this title shall be construed to affect the right of American Indians born in Canada to pass the borders of the United States, but such right shall extend only to persons who possess at least 50 per centum of blood of the American Indian race.”

Fundamentally, this passage in the complex maze of U.S. immigration law entitles Canadians, with at least 50% native bloodline, privileges to enter and remain in the United States, virtually unrestricted by U.S. immigration laws.

For a more in-depth review of this fascinating provision of immigration law, Please see “American Indians Born in Canada and the Right of Free Access to the United States” co-authored by Greg Boos of Cascadia Cross-Border Law. The article can be accessed at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2334394 andwww.jaytreaty.com.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Abtin Bahador |

« Older Entries