George W Bush pled guilty to DUI in 1976 which makes him.. inadmissible to Canada without special permission.
Canada has gotten even stricter about their drunk driving laws in the past year. For instance police there no longer need probable cause to test a driver for alcohol once they perform a vehicle stop for any valid reason.
It doesn’t matter if your charge was a misdemeanor in the U.S., a drunk driving conviction is treated as a serious offense in Canada. And any driving charge related to alcohol may preclude you from entering Canada.
- As the American Airlines flight attendants union reminded its members, if you had only one charge and it was prior to December 2008, and you completed all sentence-related obligations and fines, you may be “deemed rehabilitated by virtue of time” and allowed to enter.
- But what if you don’t qualify? You need to apply for permission to enter the country – sending an application for either a Temporary Resident Permit or a Criminal Rehabilitation application to the Canadian visa office in Los Angeles or New York.
You can show up at the border and submit a Temporary Resident Permit application and receive an instant decision but you aren’t guaranteed the decision will be favorable.
It was so much simpler when I was young and just used a drivers license to visit Canada and Mexico. Passports weren’t commonly required for travel across Europe until World War I. In 1963 the U.N. held a travel conference discussion on the abolition of passport requirements.
One has to wonder, what would you do for content if AA ceased to exist? Regardless of topic, it seems there is always mention of “American Airlines.”
@Amapas
and yet here you are
If you were ever arrested for anything, Canada will deny entry.
This doesn’t make any sense! With a valid passport to enter, how would Canada knows that you have a record, a DUI, or any arrests?
We took the train from Seattle to Vancouver a few years ago as part of a wedding, for a day trip. .
One of our group was stopped at border. They held him for questioning.
It took 2 hours. Eventually they let him in the country, but told him he had to leave on train back. (Which was original plan)
It was over a DUI from years before
@Gary, this is nothing new — it’s been like this for well over a decade. My wife is a criminal defense attorney who specializes in DUI/DWI. She *regularly* refers those convicted of a misdemeanor DUI to lawyers who specialize in working with these people to gain admission to Canada for business reasons. (She has a number of “Silicon Valley types” as clients.) Entry for leisure purposes is considerably more difficult…not that the former is easy, mind you.
If you don’t drink & drive, you don’t have anything to worry about.
It is easy to get a DUI conviction. Think about it, almost everyone driving around visiting the wine country in Napa could get a DUI conviction. I am not admitting to anything. I am just saying.
We had a HUGE debacle at the border over a reckless driving on the record. Will avoid Canada until 2023 when it clears.
This is nothing new, a friend of got a DUI 10 years ago. Every year he goes to Canada, he have to pay some kind of a fine to get in. Otherwise Canadian custom won’t let him in. I think it’s in his record forever. Canadian frowns upon DUI it seems like.
The sad reality of current U.S Drunk driving laws – You can literally have two beers and fail a breathalyzer. Which is why whenever I hear someone say “I’d never drink and drive!” I always find it amusing. If you drink, then you have likely driven while legally drunk.
The one good thing: Is that the likelihood of you being forced to take a breathalyzer after two beers, even if stopped by police, is virtually nil.
grow up kids
So…what you’re really trying to say is DUI Dougie (3 time offender I believe) should avoid planning vacations in Canada…
@Brian L —> You presume that everyone at all times knows their BAC, and that no one is human…after all, human beings sometimes make mistakes.
@Chase —> In California (cannot speak for other states), DUIs #1 and 2 are misdemeanors, presuming there are no traffic accidents involved, etc., etc. But your 3rd is a Felony.
In Canada, your 1st is a Felony.
your vs you’re
Wait reread and it is right
Just a couple of comments to add to this:
A reminder that it is the USA that started refusing any ID except passports
An American border agent can unilaterally ban anyone (except US citizens) for life for any reason with zero recourse
When crossing a border into another country you are at that country’s mercy for entry.
It’s the way it is. No use getting pissy about not going anywhere for this or that entry reason.
Canada has has been this way for decades. Don’t get a DUI & expect to cross the border.
@Jason Brandt Lewis – People clearly make mistakes. And when they make mistakes, they have to suffer the consequences.
@Ron – They SHOULD frown upon it.
Maybe we should deny entry to all their pot smokers. F Canada.
Just had a drive thru breath test here in China. They don’t play around here. I’ve watched a few cop shows from America. And they will say something like. “oh this is the 5th time we have pulled this guy over for DUI. Don’t see why they don’t make the penality tougher in the US. In Canada it’s a federal offence. I believe in US. It’s just state or local ?
Does anyone have contact info for lawyer who specializes in submitting the application to gain entry?
@Other Just Saying – oh no, not everyone visiting wine country will DUI.
Here in Europe, it’s 0.02% (US has 0.05% to 0.08%). So you simply don’t have a single beer/wine and then drink. You… simply don’t.
I visit about 20-30 wineries each year, and it’s simple – don’t drink. Taste, spit, buy whatever you want to drink in the evening, then drive.
Don’t commit a crime and then expect to have the same freedoms you used to have. Seems like a pretty simple and reasonable concept to me.
Just a reminder. We also frown upon all those loaded handguns you’re so freely allowed to carry. And Boraxo, believe me, Canadians are not visiting the stench of your president’s America much now anyway.
@Boraxo – Why, because they don’t want convicted criminals in their country?
@Boraxo, and what about all OUR. pot smokers? (In other words…don’t be silly.)
@BrianL —> …and this is why God invented Uber (and Lyft). My only point is that there *will* be times when someone has had one or two glasses of wine/beers over x amount of time and think they’re fine. I’m not referring to those who are obviously intoxicated (it’s illegal to serve them alcohol anyway). My point was NEVER to suggest it’s OK to drink and drive — it’s not, but people will, and if they get arrested, they should contact my wife! ;^)
@Andreas-Johann Ø Ulvestad —> …and the US *used* to be .10%.
Quick story: I’ve been in the wine business for 50 years. On one buying trip in France, I tasted 400+ wines over 14 days while driving over 4,000 km. I *always* spit (except at dinner, when I wasn’t the one driving). On our next-to-last day, we were visiting Chablis. Following our final winery visit, we took a cold bottle of wine from the vigneron, grabbed a sack of oysters, and drove up into the vineyards — eating oysters and drinking the wine while in the vineyard the grapes were grown for our wine. It’s the ONLY time I swallowed the wine during daylight hours… While pulling onto the Autoroute, the flics stopped our car (and everyone else’s) to check for drunk driving…passed with flying colors, but it reminded me that I was right: only swallow at dinner, and then either take a taxi, or have someone else drive…
My daughter headed to Canada to pick up some horses we’d purchased. She had an open container violation as a teen. The border guy knew this, which I find astonishing. Anyway, more than 10 years prior, so she was cleared to enter, but was subjected to enhanced scrutiny, had to practically unload entire trailer (has LQ).
I don’t think this is common knowledge or widely publicized. Should be in bold for anyone searching travel advice for Canada.
Also, given our gov’s propensity for misplaced documents, we need to look into their database system.
@Jason Brandt Lewis – Everyone who’s had “only” one or two drinks ALWAYS thinks they’re OK to drive. Maybe they are, but a lot of times they’re not. And if they’re not, and they get caught, screw ‘em. They get no sympathy from me.
As a principle, I do not believe in laws that make everyone a criminal. This is kind of the problem with pot, it makes a significant portion of the population criminals. It should have been legalized years ago.
When I first got my licence, the percent of alcohol allowed in the blood was perfectly reasonable. If I drank a glass of wine at every stop in Napa, I would not be above the legal level of alcohol. However, it seems like every year, politicians put halos on their heads by tightening the standards. I think any amount of drinking now would probably put me over the legal limit.
Uber is not really an option in many places. In NYC where I live, my chance of getting a DUI is minimal. Why? Because when I drink, I do not have to drive. I take a taxi or subway. However, if I lived in the country, not sure Uber is a reasonable option.
Finally, I should point out, the police in Napa do not seem very interested in catching people coming out of wineries. HMM.
@Brian L. Fair. However, I do not any “sympathy” for you if you get prosecuted in the thousands of laws that you are inadvertently violating or scofflaw-ing.
Moral preening is easy. But did not a divine/wise man once say “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone”.
@BrianL —>. You are, as my wife would say, “assuming facts not in evidence.” Broad, sweeping generalizations such as “Everyone who’s had ‘only’ one or two drinks ALWAYS thinks they’re OK to drive” is just simply nonsense. Do some people? Yes, absolutely! Do some people NOT think that way? Same answer: yes, absolutely! but one *should* look at the facts!
You live in NYC. Taxis, subways, AND Uber/Lyft are always options. I live in Berkeley, CA, and while BART (our version of a subway system) is RARELY an option, Uber and Lyft *always* are — even when going across the Bay to San Francisco. Uber & Lyft are also viable options in the Napa Valley…not necessarily back to the City, but certainly within the Valley itself.
Whether you believe it or not, there IS a “high awareness” of the consequences of a DUI here in California, at least in urban/suburban areas, as well as the wine-producing regions found is the counties of Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey, Santa Cruz, Livermore (Alameda), and Lodi (San Joaquin) — let alone the nine Bay Area Counties of Santa Clara, San Mateo, Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, and, of course, San Francisco.
More and more people ARE taking Uber and Lyft¹, or having a “designated driver.” This is true both during the day and at night. Many wineries throughout California have special drinks and snacks for designated drivers, and actively encourage and promote the use of “dd’s” and/or Uber and Lyft.
Bottom line for wineries and restaurants: DUI’s are BAD for business!
As for your comment that “the police in Napa do not seem very interested in catching people coming out of wineries,” for the most part, it isn’t their jurisdiction. Few wineries are actually located within the city limits of Napa. Thus, the Napa Police Dept. couldn’t stop people coming out of wineries — well, stopping everyone would be illegal anyway, but you get the point.
THAT SAID, Napa County *does* have a higher rate of DUI arrests than other counties. According to one source, “At least one driver is arrested for DUI in Napa County every 12 hours during the summer months, according to statistics released by the California Highway Patrol and other agencies. They made 184 drunk driving arrests between June and August of this year [2018]. While Napa police arrested 40 people suspected of driving under the influence, the Sheriff’s office arrested 36 more drivers. The California Highway Patrol conducted the vast majority of the arrests, seizing 108 people on DUI charges during that time.”
_______________
¹ This is, of course, limited to those who can afford it.
@Jason Brandt Lewis. I defer to your opinion. I live in New York. I have not lived in the Bay Area for years.
@Jason Brandt – While police couldn’t stop people for just leaving a winery, there isn’t a concept of “out of their jurisdiction”, in CA. The jurisdiction of all LEO’s in the state of CA is the entire state of CA, whether it be a local city cop, county sheriff, or CHP.
@Other Just Saying – I don’t seek, expect, or want sympathy from anyone. If I get caught doing something, that’s on me, and only me.
And, don’t forget — you can and will lose your Global Entry or Nexus card for an OWI (operating while impaired – includes liquor, marijuana, illegal drugs and sometimes prescription meds).
Good! I wish the US would get a lot tougher on DUI. I enjoy a drink (or several) as much as anyone but am very aware of DUI and limit myself to 1-2 over a number of hours if I know I’m driving. I’ve aware of how quickly the body metabolizes alcohol and the impact on someone of my size so rest assured I would never get above .02-.03 before I drive. If I’m drinking more it is public transportation or Uber.
Too many people die and are hurt due to the disregard shown by drunk drivers. It is common to hear of someone that had many DUI infractions but still hasn’t served significant time in prison. Also, suspending (or even taking back) their license doesn’t stop them from getting behind the wheel.
I can see the day when all cars have breatholizers (sp?) before the engine can start and also hopefully the penalties for drunk driver are much stiffer. Finally maybe time to lower the limit to .05 as many other countries have already done.
Not just airplanes, cruise ship passengers have been confined to the ship for having DUI convictions.
@Colin —> Absolutely correct, technically and legally. HOWEVER, you *also* aren’t about to find a Napa city police car patrolling Yountville or St. Helena. Yes, they can follow someone into another city or even county, but the “local” LEO isn’t going to be patrolling outside his area. Thus, the CHP arrests more people in Napa County than the Napa (city) Police and (county) Sheriff’s combined. ;^)
@AC —> 1) A DUI is never an infraction. Speeding or making an illegal U-turn are infractions. A DUI is either a Misdemeanor or a Felony, depending upon specifics and prior convictions. 2) DUI arrests are actually declining somewhat, as more and more people are indeed taking Uber/Lyft, relying on a designated driver, or simply refraining from consuming alcohol while out for the evening. 3) California had a law on the books mandating the installation of an IID (Interlock Ignition Device) — what you are incorrectly referring to as a breathalyzer — on a SECOND offense. After a two year, four-county “test program” requiring installation of IIDs after a FIRST, that mandate is now statewide. The requirement went into effect Jan. 1st of this year.
@Brian L. I am honored to meet such a self-actualized person.
I think Canada is being a little ridiculous, but I also respect the ability of all countries to refuse admittance to anyone they choose for ANY reason, or NO reason at all, for that matter.
I love visiting Canada, but if they were to stop me at the border and say, sorry, not coming in, I have no justification for demanding to be let into their country. If only half of the TDS-suffering people people in the U.S. could also realize that no one has the right (except for legal citizens of a nation) to just show up demand entry whenever and wherever they feel like.
I have personal experience with this. I was arrested under suspicion of DUI in 2008 and through a lawyer, plead it down to Negligent Driving. However, due to the original charge of DUI, my information was potentially shared with Canada.
They apparently don’t do a full history on everyone entering Canada. Think of it as being randomly selected for additional screening… but if they do that additional screening and they pull up your arrest record, they will apparently ask “Have you ever been convicted….” – lie at this point and you’re pretty much guaranteed to be ejected. Answer truthfully, and you may be permitted, it’s really up to the agent. I never was in this circumstance personally as I waited.
With Canada you can wait for it to completely expire – or you can apply early for Rehabilitation if conditions are met. I applied for early Rehabilitation a few years ago. I hired a law firm in Canada, provided them with all the details they needed including an FBI & state background check to show I’ve been a good boy since then.
It took about a year for Canada to process my case and I was presented with a document from the consulate that shows I am no longer deemed a persona non-grata apparently.
Armed with my letter, I drove to Canada recently. At the border, the agent asked me “Have you ever been denied entry to Canada?” I answered truthfully “No, I’ve never been denied entry.” He responded “Are you suuuureee?”
I clarified, “I’ve never been denied entry at the boarder, but you may be seeing something on your computer regarding my previous ineligibility to enter. I have a letter here from the consulate that shows my case has been closed.” He took the letter and confirmed a few things, chatted with a partner.
He handed me back the letter and stated “Thanks. The flag that popped up on your profile looks similar to the one we see when someone has been denied, but apparently its showing that the status of your case has cleared. You’ll want to bring a copy of that letter every time you enter Canada.”
Sure enough, when I landed in Canada a few days later (I was driving up to use the YVR airport) I got a private tour of the backside of the security facilities 🙂 They were very nice and professional and after confirming my case, got me out of there pretty quickly.
Solution where you can both drink and drive and not be drunk: Weigh 500 lbs!
So how exactly does it work that Canada gets all this information shared, even for something that is a misdemeanor here?
Excellent question pakmller. Makes you wonder who is giving what information to whom.
@Dustin Evans: You commented that ” In Canada it’s a federal offence. I believe in US. It’s just state or local ?”
You misunderstand a fundamental fact about the nature of the US. The basic unit of government is the State. The Federal government is a creation of the states. Certain, limited, authorities were ceded by the States to the Federal government when it was created. While that government routinely over-steps it’s authority, it technically has no authority to regulate drunk driving (except on Federal and Indian land.) DUI is a matter that is properly handled by the states. There are huge swaths of American activity that is supposed to be under the jurisdiction of just one of those two governments, not both.
Which is, arguably, the better approach. We have 50 States, each experimenting with the best ways to handle this particular activity, and searching for the best solutions that meet local needs. A one-size-fits-all approach at the Federal level wouldn’t necessarily be better than the solutions implemented at the State level.