Ok to ask about sneaking into Canada? April 15, 2006 1:15 PM   Subscribe

If you answer this question on sneaking into Canada you could be breaking Canadian law. The poster clearly wants to scam Citizenship and Immigration Canada, since when is this ok?
posted by tiamat to Etiquette/Policy at 1:15 PM (66 comments total)

I don't think that she WANTS to scam them, rather, the best possible option for her for a donor happens to also want citizenship and is perhaps manipulating the situation.

She may be using AskMeFi as a way to learn about the legalities of it, not to find a way around it.
posted by k8t at 1:18 PM on April 15, 2006


Tiamat said: This type of thing puts gay couples parenting rights in a bad light.

Anonymous said: Would the pregnant lesbo have to lie and say she slept with him or dated him?

Therefore, I don't think the poster cares much about gay parenting being shown in a good light. What a fucking lame question.
posted by Jimbob at 1:19 PM on April 15, 2006


Scratch that. The poster claims to be a lesbian. I guess it's one of those "reclaiming the language" things, then. Still a bad idea, though
posted by Jimbob at 1:21 PM on April 15, 2006


Helpmebreakthelawfilter
posted by puke & cry at 1:23 PM on April 15, 2006


Can't we all agree that when people want to bring a child into this world they sometimes get a little out-of-sorts and may sound a bit more aggressive than we'd consider normal?
posted by k8t at 1:25 PM on April 15, 2006


Matt wouldn't have approved the question if he thought it was problematic -- at least, that's how I think it still works. Certainly, he still leaves plenty of anonymous questions unapproved, judging by the "show deleted posts" bookmarklet.
posted by Gator at 1:26 PM on April 15, 2006


k8t, I can't agree with that analysis, because the poster wants to know how to use a provision of the immigration rules that clearly does not apply to them to get into Canada. That is to say, they have no intention of being the parent of the theoritical child in question.
posted by tiamat at 1:26 PM on April 15, 2006


ditto tiamat's last point.

sperm donors aren't parents. they're entrepreneurs.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 1:28 PM on April 15, 2006


Maybe we need to have a better understanding of how this supposed law that lets a guy get citizenship if he fathers a child with a woman works?
posted by k8t at 1:29 PM on April 15, 2006


I posted what Wikipedia says are the only legit ways to get Canadian citizenship. Fathering a child belonging to a Canadian woman certainly isn't on there.
posted by k8t at 1:33 PM on April 15, 2006


Right now, it is a theoretical question. There's nothing wrong with talking about it. Only doing it. And if anonymous receives enough honest answers to the question, perhaps she would see that it is the wrong course of action to take. To answer your question, it's always been okay to discuss theoretical questions on Ask so long as the asker has a reason for asking, and doesn't just want to chat about it. If Canadian authorities want to look this person up, they can easily contact Matt.
posted by Roger Dodger at 1:34 PM on April 15, 2006


k8t, there isn't one. Used to be a de facto landed immigrant status if you married a Canadian, with a fast track to citizenship.

The provision was massively abused and now the marraige only really gets you to the front of the line, but you're still looking at about a 2 year wait *outside* Canada while the paperwork is done. The exact amount of time can vary greatly, it'll be much less if you've got a job lined up in Canada, much more if you don't and you can't support yourself otherwise. It'll be just about forever if you have a criminal record as you'll need the Minister's ok.
posted by tiamat at 1:35 PM on April 15, 2006


I don't think there is anything wrong with this question. The poster isn't asking how to break the law, they are asking if donating sperm is enough to become an immigrant in Canada.
posted by furtive at 1:58 PM on April 15, 2006


ok, helpmescamimmigrationfilter
posted by puke & cry at 2:01 PM on April 15, 2006


If you answer this question on sneaking into Canada you could be breaking Canadian law.

The key word there is could. I think your response in thread was a perfectly legitimate "you are going to get in big freaking trouble" response to a sort of hazy question about potential law-breaking.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:04 PM on April 15, 2006


oooooh, Canada is going to come after me! oh nooooo, Canada is mad at me! I'm scaaaaarrrreed of big mean ol' Canada! You know what they do to law breakers up north! I might get a polite letter requesting removal of the post!
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:11 PM on April 15, 2006 [3 favorites]


(tiamat, I'm not mocking you, just making light of canadian politeness. generally law-breaking questions are removed, but this one asked for advice on something and everyone seems to be telling him he'll get busted no matter what scam he tries)
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:16 PM on April 15, 2006


mathowie, the lesbian asking the question is a girl.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:24 PM on April 15, 2006 [1 favorite]


This joke will work exactly once.
posted by Gator at 2:25 PM on April 15, 2006


mathowie, the lesbian asking the question is a girl.

It seems like all the lesbians asking these sorts of questions are girls.
posted by scottreynen at 2:39 PM on April 15, 2006


Mathowie doesn't care about Canadians.

And apparently isn't interested in recieving polite messages regarding people's objections to posts.

That's right kids, he likes, nay, craves and needs, the nasty talk!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 2:41 PM on April 15, 2006


Metafilter: the lesbian asking the question is a girl
posted by Dasein at 2:56 PM on April 15, 2006


What's all this aboot then, eh?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:58 PM on April 15, 2006


mr_crash_davis, this is aboot burning the ruff off the whitehouse, eh!
posted by tiamat at 3:21 PM on April 15, 2006


Has anyone else noticed the admins are are suspiciously light-hearted lately? I am suspicious. I have concerns. I want the truth.
posted by nthdegx at 3:22 PM on April 15, 2006


I have grave doubts over [there was an error processing this directive].
posted by fire&wings at 3:26 PM on April 15, 2006


The OP followed up in-thread, via me, fyi.

The truth is that it's a lovely sunny day.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 3:36 PM on April 15, 2006


The truth is that it's a lovely sunny day.

yes ... far too lovely to be hidden in a dark lab, jerking off into a test tube
posted by pyramid termite at 3:59 PM on April 15, 2006


Has anyone else noticed the admins are are suspiciously light-hearted lately? I am suspicious. I have concerns. I want the truth.

i suspect jessamyn is having an affair with a postal worker.
posted by andrew cooke at 4:01 PM on April 15, 2006


Has anyone else noticed the admins are are suspiciously light-hearted lately?

I have in fact noticed this, and am wondering how to best encourage it? This:

oooooh, Canada is going to come after me! oh nooooo, Canada is mad at me! I'm scaaaaarrrreed of big mean ol' Canada! You know what they do to law breakers up north! I might get a polite letter requesting removal of the post!

was fucking hilarious.
posted by Ryvar at 4:02 PM on April 15, 2006


Enlightened MeFites don't believe nations have a right to defend their borders or be selective about who enters the country.
posted by keswick at 4:06 PM on April 15, 2006


You know what they do to law breakers up north!

You'd better watch out -- they're sharpening the moose as we speak.
posted by mendel at 4:13 PM on April 15, 2006


i suspect jessamyn is having an affair with a postal worker.

I was just oiling up the old typewriter, actually.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 4:20 PM on April 15, 2006


"'Oiling up the old typewriter', eh?" he said knowingly. Wink-wink, nudge-nudge, say n'more!
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:26 PM on April 15, 2006


I don't actually think canadians are all that polite really.
posted by delmoi at 4:27 PM on April 15, 2006




now you've done it, yank
posted by pyramid termite at 4:29 PM on April 15, 2006


There's a difference between asking what's legal with intent to circumvent the law if necessary, and asking how to circumvent the law. I don't see anything wrong with asking this question. This callout is a little over-the-top panicky, as is advising people in the thread not to answer under penalty of criminal charges. Yeesh.
posted by scarabic at 5:04 PM on April 15, 2006


It's kind of strange that it's easier to get permanent residency status in the US than in Canada. Back 16 years ago when I married a Canadian, marriage still allowed you to immigrate, but there were work restrictions and some other stuff. It was a lot easier for her to move here and work than me to move there. Now it sounds like it's even more difficult. Huh. I sort of wish it had worked out differently and I was in Canada now. She stayed here, by the way, and I think is even a citizen now. Before Bush, though.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:07 PM on April 15, 2006


There used to even be a fiance(e) immigration class, and that's gone too. Apparently there are a lot of people who want to come up here.
posted by blacklite at 7:15 PM on April 15, 2006


"I sort of wish it had worked out differently and I was in Canada now."

... mustn't ...
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:19 PM on April 15, 2006


I don't actually think canadians are all that polite really.

It's a full on myth, it is.

I sort of wish it had worked out differently and I was in Canada now.

The USA needs you more than we do.
posted by zarah at 7:53 PM on April 15, 2006


AskMetafilter: Accessory before the fact.

Metafilter: Canada is mad at me.
posted by blue_beetle at 8:31 PM on April 15, 2006


mathowie wrote...
generally law-breaking questions are removed,

So THIS is why all my quicklime questions get deleted.
posted by tkolar at 10:30 PM on April 15, 2006


Right, I'm really starting to get weirded out now.
posted by nthdegx at 5:47 AM on April 16, 2006


"Enlightened MeFites don't believe nations have a right to defend their borders or be selective about who enters the country."

As an American, I especially don't believe that Canada has a right to defend its borders or be selective aboot who enters the country.
posted by klangklangston at 8:27 AM on April 16, 2006


If MetaFilter was subject to every law in every jurisdiction, all posts would have to be removed. For instance:

Allah is not god and Muhammed was a false prophet.

See, now Matt has to release my information over to the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:52 AM on April 16, 2006


Optimus Chyme wrote...
[elided]

All right! Way to needlessly offend a large segment of the earth's population, just to make a point on a bulletin board!
posted by tkolar at 1:05 PM on April 16, 2006


I was just oiling up the old typewriter, actually. -- jessamyn

Why...what an interesting euphemism. You librarians...it's always the quiet ones you have to watch out for.
posted by dejah420 at 1:42 PM on April 16, 2006


Yeah, Optimus Chyme, do you know how many Mefi-reading Muslim Saudis you just offended? In future, please be sure to censor yourself when making points about self-censorship.
posted by Dasein at 1:55 PM on April 16, 2006


*As opposed to Mefi-reading non-Muslim Saudis? Nevermind.
posted by Dasein at 1:56 PM on April 16, 2006


Yeah, Optimus Chyme, do you know how many Mefi-reading Muslim Saudis you just offended? In future, please be sure to censor yourself when making points about self-censorship.

There's nothing wrong with being polite.
posted by tkolar at 2:01 PM on April 16, 2006


It's one thing if you're in conversation with someone. But if we have to "be polite" in print, lest we offend someone somewhere, we've sacrificed freedom and debate to irrational sensitivity. If people don't like what someone has to say, they don't have to read it; or they can write something in response.

I mean, what's next:

Christ didn't really rise from the dead today.

Wouldn't want to offend Christians. Better not to disagree at all.
posted by Dasein at 2:38 PM on April 16, 2006


maybe i misread, but i thought tkolar's point wasn't that oc should be banned, or his text removed, but that what he posted showed poor judgement and taste. i agree.

free speech lets you say things that otherwise you shouldn't/couldn't. that doesn't mean we should all run round saying things we otherwise could not, just to check it's still working...
posted by andrew cooke at 2:46 PM on April 16, 2006


"irrational sensitivity" -- I like that. Is there such a thing as "rational sensitivity"?

In any case, even a rudimentary sense of politeness will lead a person to not use a needlessly offensive statement where another a different will suit just as well.

For example, if I want to use the word "deserved" in a sentence, I probably would not choose:

"The people in the World Trade Center deserved to die."

It's certainly a legitimate use of "deserved", it's just pointlessly offensive. The offense serves no purpose.

Essentially, if you're going to go knowingly offend people, it should either be in making a point directly about them, or in trying to get a cheap laugh. Otherwise it's just juvenile "They said I shouldn't so I'm going to" crap.
posted by tkolar at 2:52 PM on April 16, 2006


Whups, forgot to preview. What the Right Honorable Mr. Cooke said.
posted by tkolar at 2:55 PM on April 16, 2006


providing advice on how to evade CBSA or CIC authorities could be considered a violation of the Immigration Act and/or the Customs Act, which could result in civil or criminal penalties

I missed this thread when it first came up, but I didn't want to miss my chance to respond.

Fuck you.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:37 PM on April 16, 2006


Essentially, if you're going to go knowingly offend people, it should either be in making a point directly about them

By this standard, the comment you objected to qualified. It made a point about the illiberal censoriousness of many Muslim countries (and how we wouldn't want Metafilter to take their offence into account).
posted by Dasein at 7:41 PM on April 16, 2006


All right! Way to needlessly offend a large segment of the earth's population, just to make a point on a bulletin board!
posted by tkolar at 1:05 PM PST on April 16


free speech lets you say things that otherwise you shouldn't/couldn't. that doesn't mean we should all run round saying things we otherwise could not, just to check it's still working...
posted by andrew cooke at 2:46 PM PST on April 16


Well since you mention it I sincerely believe that Allah is not god and that Muhammed was a false prophet so, you know, shove it.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:56 PM on April 16, 2006


Alright, that does it:

I call down the high and mighty forces of mild social opprobrium upon both of you.

You will be forever cursed to bear the mark of a couple of random people thinking you could have made better use of your time and energy.

For an eternity you will both carry the scars that record your transgressions, and upon seeing them peoples of all colors and creeds will cry out and say "Eh, whatever."

Go now, and know that you have demonstrated impoliteness, and that your mothers would not be pleased with you.
posted by tkolar at 11:21 PM on April 16, 2006


Considering the number of atheists here, I'm pretty surprised by the folks piling on Optimus Chyme. Every time an atheist asserts her/his disbelief, they are saying the same thing he did.
If you don't believe in God, any God, you are saying Allah does not exist and Mohammed was a false prophet.
Or does the Bright Handbook have some "Sneer at the Christians, humor the Muslims" clause that I don't know about?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:29 PM on April 16, 2006


Alvy, assuming that you asking a question and not merely trolling:

The Muslim religion specifically calls out defaming the prophet as something that ought to be avoided, both by believers and non-believers.

It's a simple enough courtesy to extend, but to the schoolyard bully mentality (or those who were victims to it) it's an absolutely irresistable call to public masturbation.

As for the Christians, you'll find people on Metafilter equally willing to defend their right to practice their faith quietly, free from random pokes from adolescents with keyboards.

Metafilter has a higher than average number of regular contributors who believe in common courtesy and peaceful discourse. Of course, that's not saying much when compared to the rest of the Internet, but it's a start.
posted by tkolar at 11:43 PM on April 16, 2006


Get over yourself. What's the point of talking if every comment must be appropriate for both kindly old grandmothers and sensitive children? Do you honestly think that MeFi should abide by the laws of every nation? Do you really think it's all that rude to say that you believe Allah or YHWH or Jesus or Hubbard is not god, or to say that you do believe one of these entities is god? If they can't accept that other people have different, conflicting beliefs, that's their problem and yours, not mine.

I gave an example of a comment that would be illegal under another country's insane law, and you flipped out. Why? Who knows? You and andrew cooke apparently only support people speaking their minds if they agree with you, for I did not curse, nor type in all caps, nor insult anyone personally; in all, I'd say it was quite innocuous. But don't let that stop you from getting a huffed up and rarin' to go over a non-issue.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:03 AM on April 17, 2006


"Is there such a thing as 'rational sensitivity'?"

Of course. Why wouldn't there be?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:06 AM on April 17, 2006


The Muslim religion specifically calls out defaming the prophet as something that ought to be avoided, both by believers and non-believers.

What faith encourages defaming their figureheads? Are you saying Muslims can't take a joke, or that slagging Christians is fine, since they're such big fans of forgiviness? Imagine this deleted FPP was titled Mohammed is Hitler, instead of Jesus.
Would that make it more offensive to you?

Alvy, assuming that you asking a question and not merely trolling...
Mother Simpson: How many roads must a man walk down before you can call him a man?
Homer Simpson: Seven!
Lisa Simpson: Dad, it's a rhetorical question.
Homer Simpson: Rhetorical, eh? Eight!
Lisa Simpson: Dad, do you even know what "rhetorical" means?
Homer Simpson: Do I know what rhetorical means?
While I agree that the level of discourse here is miles above that of most other communities, a bias against Christianity will often manifest itself in faith-related threads. Although a lot of it is tied into members being frustrated with America's current political situation, the Us Vs. Them mentality has occasionally resulted in some ugly comments and sentiments, even by my(Atheist for over half of my life) standards.
What OC said was very innocuous, and again was just the logical extension of saying "I don't believe in God." Just because it was specifically applied to the Mulsim faith doesn't somehow make it worse than saying there is no God, that the Messiah never existed, and that Chrsitians are all deluded.

And although you never did answer my "question", I do appreciate you taking the time to teach me The True Meaning of MetaFilter.

And the sneaky way you tried to paint me with the Troll brush (Hmmm... The Troller Roller™? MePro, here I come!) was just supoib.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:05 AM on April 17, 2006


We will dream the dream of the ants another day.
posted by tkolar at 9:21 AM on April 17, 2006


I know the aim of the ask meta would limit every answer to a direct one, but sometimes a little moral questioning is required to help answer the actual question.
posted by dobie at 12:06 PM on April 17, 2006


« Older Potential Fiery Train Wrecks Averted!   |   Meetup at Cory Doctorow Debate: Sydney? Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments