Talk:Traveling with a criminal history

Australia and New Zealand

If anyone has an interest in fleshing out these countries' entries (I don't think it wise that I do it because my profession might lead some to believe there is a potential conflict of interest), then the academic paper "Criminal Records, Spent Convictions and Privacy: A Trans-Tasman Comparison" by Moira Paterson can be downloaded without charge from the Social Science Research Network electronic library at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2159548 --118.93nzp (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

A Kiwi I met claimed an Aussie immigration officer asked him if he had a criminal record and he replied "Do you still need one?" Funny, perhaps, but almost certainly not a good idea. Pashley (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Canada

I just moved a long section titled "Character concerns" from the country page to here. It probably needs cleanup. See country talk page. Pashley (talk) 10:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. So what needs to be done to prevent Canada from being used as a dumping ground for dubious foreign characters like Conrad Black? K7L (talk) 11:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Quoting K7L on another page: "Should this be in *any* article? Anyone going that route should consult a lawyer, not a wiki, as Wikivoyage is in no position to offer qualified legal advice." Pashley (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

In some of the highly litigious cultures of North America that might be a cautious stance for a webmaster to adopt. However and even though the WMF servers are located in the US of A, they've usually recognised that their audience is spread worldwide and taken quite a bold approach.

It may be too difficult/expensive for some travellers with criminal records to consult Canadian lawyers before travelling so, unless you are suggesting we nuke the whole article, I don't see the fact that material in this article may get out of date/be wrong as an inherent obstacle - the same caveats are true of much of our material and articles. The world changes. --118.93nzp (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

My concern is that the statements here never were accurate and we cannot determine from where this "information" originated. As this is an awkward legal issue (and not just an individual traveller's opinion of some random destination) we need to stick to what can be reliably sourced, Wikipedia style. There are consequences to the traveller to getting this wrong. I'd expect someone with a criminal record who decides they can't afford a lawyer so they're just going to try going to Canada anyway and see what happens is in for an unpleasant surprise as being turned away once at the border all but guarantees problems on every subsequent attempt. K7L (talk) 07:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I have a similar concern seeing this page. These legal situations is not always straightforward with laws changing over time, and WV should never be a source of legal advice. Personally I would never use a page from WV for legal direction and nigher should anyone else. Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Broader scope?

Should this be moved to, be replaced by or become part of an article with broader scope, perhaps "travel restrictions"? A criminal record is far from the only reason one might be denied entry somewhere:

• Chinese work visas, most retirement visas, some immigration visas, ... require a health check. I've been told the Chinese will deport anyone HIV-positive, do not know if that is true. Certainly many countries want to exclude carriers of contagious diseases.
• Mental health issues may also come into play. In a recent case a Canadian was excluded from the US because she had been treated for depression. How & why did they have access to health records?
• There are restrictions between pairs of countries. Except perhaps for very specific exceptions, you cannot visit Saudi Arabia with an Israeli passport or the US with a Cuban one or ...
• Political controversies may come into it. The US excluded Canadian writer w:Farley Mowat for his left-wing views back in Cold War days, I think China currently excludes various people who would "disturb social harmony", etc.
• What about being a racist? Homophobe? Openly gay? Addict? Drunk? Alcoholic on the wagon? ...? Could you be excluded from some places for those?

I have neither the time nor expertise to tackle that, but I think it might be a good idea. Pashley (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Good idea, Pashley. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd think that most of the "Dixieland officials turn away anyone with Underground Railroad visas or passport stamps" nonsense is already adequately addressed in the individual country articles. Splitting the info to travel restrictions as its own article is only justified to deal with special cases which are too complex to cover in a main country article. Criminal history is one instance, medical conditions may be another (the US has a history of discriminating against AIDS patients, not sure if this has stopped) and then there's the problem of countries which, if they've ever refused a traveller a visa or admittance once, will reject all valid subsequent requests - even if the reasons for the original refusal no longer exist. K7L (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's more useful for the average traveller to have much of the information in the pertinent country level article - but that's not to say that this particular article (and potentially many of the ones Pashley describes) wouldn't provide additional detail and overview. --118.93nzp (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we want to deal with this since it might violate Wikivoyage:Illegal activities policy but some travellers may want to find countries from which they cannot be extradited. One example is w:Bobby_Fischer#Asylum_in_Iceland.

Another issue might be which countries will prosecute citizens for sex crimes committed abroad. I know quite a few do for child molesting, not sure if some of the fanatics might prosecute for other "sins". Pashley (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Reorder the countries alphabetically?

As I would like to add even more countries as I know, should we first reorder the countries alphabetically? Or is there any other policy or guideline to order countries?--Jusjih (talk) 03:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It might be best to order them first by continent and then alphabetically. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

As UN M.49 looks like the "most globally standardized" standard for continents, I am retrofitting "Africa, Americas, Asia, Europe, Oceania" as the "five major continents" with permanent population into existing entries.--Jusjih (talk) 03:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Good decision. -- Alice^✉ 11:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The page Tipping is already divided by continent, but with too many blank sections, thus hard to read. This is why I have left Africa as the only blank section here for now.--Jusjih (talk) 05:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Rename: Travel with a criminal history?

Might be a minor history, but Travel with a criminal history is a slightly shorter name, and coherent with other titles. /Yvwv (talk) 02:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't like it because in American English, that phrase sounds like an imperative verb. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

What countries to include in the list to make the article usable or even guide?

What countries need to be included in the list to make the article usable or even guide? As of now it covers the big English-speaking ones, the EU, China and Taiwan.

I think it's not necessary to have the immigration legislation of all the world's 200 or so countries here from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe. Nevertheless we should probably cover the world's 20-30 biggest/most visited countries here (Thailand, Brazil, India etc. etc.). Information can probably found on the websites of the immigration authorities.

Also the article would perhaps need some sort of disclaimer along the lines of Altitude_sickness#Understand. Thoughts? --ϒpsilon (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Done, perhaps the article is at usable status now? For the record, I picked the countries to include from w:World Tourism rankings (countries with more than 5 million visitors a year) and if you think some country is missing, feel free to add it. Useful Google terms are "[country] visa form" and "[country] landing card". ϒψιλον (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Added still some more, though of course only by googling and reading through documents visitors need to fill in. Of course, especially in cases where you need to have a visa, filling in the documents may not be all there is, there may be interviews at the embassy or by border guards, but as we say in the disclaimer box of the article, if you're worried about not being allowed to travel somewhere, better contact the destination country's authorities first. Ypsilon (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Unintelligible sentence on Canada

What is this sentence intended to tell?

"With the exception of crimes of conscience, even if you were prosecuted for an offence in that country which would not have been an offence in Canada, it would result in you being inadmissible."

I cannot see what "it" and "that country" refer to in the grammatical sense. Even if that problem is corrected, the sentence is much too complicated, and I think minor wording changes elsewhere could make whatever we are trying to say here redundant-

–LPfi (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the intended meaning is something like: "If you have been prosecuted in another country for an action that is a crime in that country but is not a crime in Canada, you are inadmissible to Canada as a result. Crimes of conscience are an exception." —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, that seems to be the intended meaning. I substituted your version for the awkward one. –LPfi (talk) 11:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)