For Canadians who enjoy the variety and low prices of US outlet malls (conveniently located near the Canadian border), closer information sharing will take place between the US and Canadian immigration authorities, as per the following US government press release entitled, “Secretary Napolitano and Minister Van Loan Announce Initiatives to Combat Common Threats and Expedite Travel and Trade”, at the following link:

http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1259080420061.shtm

The official impetus for the increased information sharing is “national and economic security”.  ‘National security’ is an oblique reference to terrorists, but ‘economic security’ implies that both Canada’s and the USA’s economic interests are in sync.  This is not always the case.  It would be more accurate to say that Canada needs the USA as its main trading partner, so we will share whatever information they will want from us.

It is worth mentioning that there has already been the sharing of FBI information by the Canadian border authorities, the CBSA (which is why I have had many US-citizen clients have their US-based DUIs discovered when trying to enter Canada).   Similarly, when I, my wife and children travelled over the US border to shop three days in a row during the Christmas holidays, the US border guard knew it was our third day of entry (likely based on my license plate), and aggressively confronted me about this on my third day of entry. I said that we needed to buy our children’s spring time clothes, and was let through.

If your thing is to buy stuff for you or your immediate family (Polish sausage, Ugg boots, etc.), you will probably not be harassed on the US side.  However, you may be dinged for the appropriate duty on the Canadian side.

The increased use of biometric information was confirmed as follows: “Secretary Napolitano announced that the United States will join a biometric data sharing initiative involving Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom and, eventually, New Zealand – an initiative designed to strengthen the integrity of immigration systems and the security of each country while protecting privacy and civil rights.”   It is interesting that these countries are all predominantly English speaking.  All of them have an immigration program, and comprise the most popular destinations for both legal and illegal immigration.

The use of biometric information (likely to be focused on fingerprint and face-recognition technology) will reduce the number of illegal workers who try to pass off other people’s passports as their own, among other snakehead tricks.  Since no technology if fool proof, the risk of biometric technology would have to be tempered by some appeal process in the case of mistaken identity and/or wrongful prosecution.  Even prior to this, I know of responsible, ordinary people whose names are ‘ethnic-sounding’ and have been referred to more thorough background checks by US authorities.  One was even a federal Canadian government employee!

For those lucky enough to work for a multinational, or other permitted (mostly  corporate) entities, NEXUS and FAST Cards will be Accepted Everywhere as of November 25 2009. In addition, these passes will be accepted in all lanes at all land and sea border ports of entry.

This closer information sharing is always of concern to those libertarian types who fret about increasing government surveillance of the entire public.  The risk is that the more efficient capturing of information by more and more governments would lead to more government knowledge about individuals, even those who are law-abiding.  To distract the public from this danger, governments make reference to terror, which, as the name implies, has the effect of terrifying people.  The reference in the above-press release doesn’t deviate from this pattern, as can be seen in the following quote:  “Those initiatives build on their shared commitment to tackle common threats like terrorism and organized crime while ensuring the lawful flow of travel and trade across the border.”

The reference to terror also has the added benefit (from the government’s point of view) of directing attention away from government intrusions into privacy, to those minorities who are stereotyped as terrorists.  These minorities tend to be politically ineffective (despite what right-wing talk radio enthusiasts assert) and thus will bear the brunt of the government’s references to terror.

Canadian Immigration law is inherently complex and can encompass various other laws; it can intersect criminal law, international law, extradition law, politics, and human rights.  Below is an unscientific summary of the various types of immigration lawyers practicing in Canada today.  The description below is a very rough guide.  The reality is that there are some immigration lawyers who straddle more than one of the categories below.

Corporate Immigration Lawyer

Legislation Intimately Familiar With: The parts of the Immigration Refugee Protection Act dealing with temporary entry, the DUI statutes of developed countries

Core clientele:  Corporations and the persons they employ, usually in the developed world.

Persistent/recurring case: Drunky McDrunk, a number cruncher or computer programmer who needs extra assistance entering Canada, because of a drunk driving conviction.

Amount of litigation experience: varies depending on how large the corporate clientele is; lawyers who are retained by larger corporations usually don’t bother to litigate since they often do the same type of case repeatedly; lawyers retained by smaller corporations usually have some litigation experience since they are not deluged by the huge, consistent clientele that corporations offer.

Political perspective: most refugees are fake, but if a corporation needs the services of that fake refugee, then that’s ok.  The enforcement department is too concerned about protecting the rights of nannies and fruit pickers at the expense of the efficient processing of Drunky Mc Drunk’s work permit.

Refugee Immigration Lawyer

Legislation Intimately Familiar with: UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the parts of the Immigration Refugee Protection Act dealing with refugees and the removal of unsuccessful refugees from Canada.

Core clientele: victims of failed or oppressive states, almost always in the developing world.

Persistent/recurring case: this depends on the country, and the political/religious/sociological climate there.  Such cases could comprise gays in Mexico, Palestinians in the Occupied West Bank or Gaza, or Underground Church-goers in China.

Amount of litigation experience: more than the corporate immigration lawyer, since the relatively lower success rate of refugee claimants necessitates, the use of the federal court.

Political perspective: the world is an oppressive place, and the enforcement department is politically compromised and the immigration department is preoccupied with a ham-handed profiling of minorities’.

Permanent Resident Immigration Lawyer

Legislation Intimately Familiar with: The parts of the Immigration Refugee Protection Act dealing with permanent entry, the Nominee Programs of various provinces.

Core clientele:  Individuals originally from the developing world, and such persons who are studying or working in Canada.

Persistent/recurring case: a case filed in a visa office that is taking way too long, or a case where Mr. Patel’s education or Mr. Li’s English skills are not high enough to make the grade. Similarly, a case where a marriage is seen as ‘fake’.

Amount of litigation experience: varies depending on how large the client base is: lawyers who represent many clients for permanent residence don’t have the time to go to court.

Political perspective: foreign credentials aren’t properly recognized in Canada, and the immigration department is preoccupied with a ham-handed profiling of minorities’ work history.

Litigation Immigration Lawyer

Legislation Intimately familiar with: everything necessary for the case being worked on (these types of immigration lawyers are ‘legislative tourists’ – they must quickly pick up on the how the relevant part of the law operates and try to argue why it should be interpreted in a way that helps their client)

Core clientele: everybody whose case was rejected or delayed by the Immigration Department;

Persistent/recurring case: whoever the enforcement department is leaning on; whoever the immigration department is making a test case out of;

Amount of litigation experience: more than all of the other lawyers, given the type of work engaged in.

Political perspective: recognizing the competing interests (e.g individual versus collective) of the relevant statute they are working on.

Perhaps you reviewed Canada’s official immigration website and became baffled (given its size, this is a common reaction).  Let’s say that as a result you determined that you need an immigration lawyer.  The selection of a lawyer consists of many factors that I won’t discuss in detail (such as experience, courtesy, diligence, respect etc.).  One factor I want to focus on in this entry is whether to pick an immigration law firm with many lawyers or one lawyer.

When you pick a one-lawyer law firm, you tend to pick a lawyer who does all the legal work, along with a support staff who does the clerical tasks (such as asking you for documents, giving you documents, typing out forms and simple correspondence).  The sole practitioner is expected to supervise his clerical staff in these tasks.  Legal questions you may have are answered by the lawyer.

When you select a law firm with more than one lawyer (e.g. where the law firm says in fine print “Lawyers in Association”, for example), there tends to be one or two ‘star lawyers’ (the ones you see in the advertising), and a bunch of lawyers whose names are in really, really, tiny letters in the letterhead.  The promotional material for these ‘star lawyer’s talks about the accomplishments of the law firm, but does not always specify which lawyer has achieved which accomplishment.  The promotional material does not reveal if the accomplishment achieved by the law firm was done by a lawyer who has long since left the firm.

For these law firms containing more than one lawyer, you may get the ‘star lawyer’ throughout the life of your case.  If you don’t get the ‘star lawyer’, your case may be passed back and forth to different lawyers because the lawyer you saw in the advertisement is not available.  This may or may not be a good thing.  Suppose you hired the ‘star lawyer’ based on her success in a case that resembles your own case.  You may be disappointed to find out that your case has been given to a lawyer not known to handle the type of case such as yours.

A different way to express this difference in law firms is the ‘retail’ or ‘wholesale’ lawyer.  The retail lawyer (often a sole practitioner) sells his legal services directly to the public through advertising that highlights that individual lawyer.  A wholesale lawyer is more on the backend of a law office and is a lawyer that comes under the advertising umbrella of a different lawyer (often that of the ‘star lawyer’ who is more prominently displayed in that law firm’s advertising).  It is often the ‘star lawyer’ that gets you in the door, but it isn’t always the ‘star lawyer’ that handles your case.

The jury is out on which model is better for both the lawyers and would-be clients.  The ‘wholesale’ lawyer can get the advantage of lesser advertising costs (since they presumably are shared with the ‘star lawyer’.  This means that they don’t have to get as many immigration cases to support their practice.  This makes their life easier.

However, they often get less money than the ‘star lawyer’ because they often must engage in a fee sharing arrangement with the ‘star lawyer’ – who pays for a share of the advertising.  This may require the wholesale lawyer to take on more work to compensate for the sharing of her fee with the ‘star lawyer’.

On the other hand the ‘retail’ lawyer is putting his name and reputation out in the public and takes all the corresponding credit and blame.  The ‘retail’ lawyer must be very careful in his dealings with his clients and the courts since the blame cannot be ‘spread around’ to other lawyers.  The ‘retail’ lawyer must make all of the decisions about promotion and takes all of the financial risk and profit.

As far as what is good for clients, the ‘retail’ lawyer is the only person the client would turn to for a legal question.  This may be easier for the client, especially if the ‘retail’ lawyer has established a good rapport with the client.  By contrast, a ‘wholesale’ lawyer may be one of many lawyers who work on a client’s case.  This may cause confusion and delay when a client is trying to communicate with a law firm that adopts the ‘wholesale’ lawyer model.   Miscommunication between lawyers and clients can seriously damage the relationship between the lawyer and client and may also damage a client’s case.

Persons seeking entry to Canada on a temporary basis generally have to prove two things: they have enough funds to support their visit, and they will return to their home country in the foreseeable future.  For those with a criminal record, a person seeking entry to Canada must prove that they have rehabilitated themselves or prove that they are unlikely to pose a risk to the safety of Canadians.  This makes perfect sense; as a father of two young children, I don’t want Canada to invite persons who are going to pose a risk on the streets where my kids play and go to school.

In theory, you can also be barred from visiting Canada for more exotic reasons.  You can have trouble entering Canada under section 34(1) of the Immigration Refugee Protection Act.  This states as follows:

“A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds for:

(a) engaging in an act of espionage or an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada;

(b) engaging in or instigating the subversion by force of any government;

(c) engaging in terrorism;

(d) being a danger to the security of Canada;

(e) engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada; or

(f) being a member of an organisation that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in acts referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c).”

Alykhan Velshi, the immigration department’s spokesman, has said that this part of the act was designed to protect Canadians from people who fund, support or engage in terrorism.  I don’t think it should be confined just to conventional terrorism, but state-sponsored terrorism as well.

Alan Dershowitz is a prominent American legal academic.  He has openly advocated the use of torture:

(See: “Dershowitz: Torture could be justified” at the following link:)

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/cnna.Dershowitz/

Canada’s Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act states as follows:

6. (1) Every person who, either before or after the coming into force of this section, commits outside Canada…

(b) a crime against humanity, or

(c) a war crime,

is guilty of an indictable offence and may be prosecuted for that offence in accordance

with section 8.

In the same act, torture is defined as a ‘crime against humanity’ – makes sense.

The section where Mr. Dershowitz can be barred entry to Canada is as follows:

Conspiracy, attempt, etc.

6 (1.1) Every person who conspires or attempts to commit, is an accessory after the fact in relation to, or counsels in relation to, an offence referred to in subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence. [Emphasis Added]

Punishment

(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (1.1)

(a) shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life, if an intentional killing forms the basis of the offence; and

(b) is liable to imprisonment for life, in any other case

Let’s leave aside whether or not the US government has justified its policies of torture on the basis of Mr. Dershowitz’s beliefs on the usefulness of torture.  If this could ever be proven in a Canadian court, he would be serving time in a Canadian jail. In reality, Mr. Dershowitz has spoken regularly in Canada with no harassment by the Canadian immigration authorities or the Canada Border Service Agency.  This is curious given the Canada Border Service Agency’s enthusiasm to ban George Galloway from Canada during March of 2009, based on his alleged support of terrorism (he was supposed to speak at a peace rally in Canada).  The CBSA conducted a ‘preliminary assessment’ of whether or not Mr. Galloway should have been admitted to Canada and determined he should not.

Mr. Galloway has challenged this ban in federal court and has thus far been successful.  (see: British MP George Galloway hoping to testify in Federal Court over entry ban at the link:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5gnwzJpq1Kwt87puCKmit8jss72ZA

Jaded Bottom line: if you advocate torturing of unpopular people, Canada will welcome you.  If you’re loudly advocating for peace and/or Palestinian rights, your words will be scrutinized carefully, and you may not be able to enter Canada as a visitor.

“Please note: Agents cannot make decisions on applications that are being processed by Case Processing Centres or CIC offices, nor can they assist in processing applications more quickly.”

There is also a description of the typical uses of the call-centre as follows:

• listen to pre-recorded information about Citizenship and Immigration (CIC) programs,
• order application kits, and
• check the status of your application.

Those on the jaded side of things would disagree and feel that it is just fine to for the Canadian government to have call-centre agents give advice on how and where to file applications, what type of application is appropriate to file in any situation, etcetera.  Those on the jaded or cynical side may feel that this can cut out the ‘middle man’  (i.e. immigration lawyers who practice Canadian immigration law).  The jaded types would be right, but only if immigration services were akin to pizza selection and delivery.