Quote:
That type of thing happens at the border - going both ways. It's cruel and stupid, but it happens. At least they didn't exclude her from the States, like they would have done had she been an American coming the other direction!
Yes, that happens at the border, going both ways,but,
obviously the U.S. did exclude her. And if the person is not just excluded, but "banned" there are usually specific reasons why beyond merely having a partner on the other side of the border.
So, of course, there is the same disagreement as oft before:
I very strongly believe Canadian border officials, CBSA and IOs, tend toward allowing or even facilitating entry of Americans into Canada in similar circumstances, more so than going the other way, that is, not to reject entry, exclude (which is the same as turning back), or preclude or ban (as in give status that constitutes prospective exclusion).
Language means something. This person obviously was "excluded" from entry into the U.S. As DerbyGirl noted, this could very well have been a result of the manner in which she attempted entry into the U.S.
Whether she will be turned back in future attempts is a separate issue; but I also strongly suspect that both sides of the border tend toward following the precedent set in a specific individual's case: that once one has been turned back the first time, the likelihood of being turned back in the future increases dramatically (I think this worked in my favor, in the opposite sense, for years, that is that since I had been allowed entry subsequent IOs were reluctant to be the first to reject me). This does not necessarily mean one is "banned" or precluded from entry, but that obtaining entry thereafter can be more difficult, particularly if the circumstances remain the same.
While I am not certain, it is my impression that pregnancy looms larger at the border for those attempting to come into the U.S., policy-wise, that is, that there is a deliberate policy (tacit if not overt) to discourage pregnant foreign nationals from entering the States to have their child born in the States. They do not know, at the border, that the unborn child is actually the child of an American father, who
may become an American citizen regardless of where born (under the U.S. system, it is a bit more complex for children of Am citizen fathers to become U.S. citizens).
The thing is, individual IOs can make inferences about what a person seeking entry intends, including an inference that the person seeking entry has made a material misrepresentation as to what they intend. This can happen unfairly, particular with those who are unsophisticated relative to immigration matters (unfortunately, many of us "learn" more from experience, and that can come too late), resulting in either (more often I believe) notations in the person's records that make it more likely they will be turned back on future attempts (but not necessarily), or even make a decision to "ban" the person (two years I think it is).
It happens going the other way . . . recent story about a Canadian "snowbird" who owns a home in Florida, who has been spending the winter months (3 to 4 months) in Florida for many years (as many retired Canadians do, in Florida, Texas along the Rio Grande, and in Arizona), whose name was similar to someone for whom there was an outstanding warrant, then on being referred to secondary and being questioned closely, he admitted to part-time "work" at a golf course in Florida in exchange for green privileges . . . that is, he did some minor handyman jobs in exchange for a waiver of the fee to play golf . . . and he was banned from the U.S. for five years. Even though this guy had been crossing the border for many years, he did not grasp the significance of doing even this minimal sort of "work" in the U.S. Stuff happens.
For the OP here, there is indeed a lot of work to do to sort things out and get on track. I suspect (OP does not say) that his Canadian wife is indeed on social assistance at this point or about to be (she's not working, he's not supporting her, and she is pregnant . . . the rent still has to be paid, groceries put in the fridge), and that makes her sponsorship of him problematic.
Their options are many, none easy. None likely to be resolved in the short term. Short term is getting work. Not easy in this economy. If and when he can begin to support her sufficiently to keep her off social assistance, that will facilitate her eligibility to sponsor him into Canada. Or, with work he can sponsor her to come to the States. Various avenues to go from there.
If she is not on social assistance, yep, do the outland app ASAP. If he can work in the trades, even on an entry level, he has a far better chance of finding work in Canada in the near future than in much of the U.S. (U.S. unemployment, though, is not at all evenly distributed, some areas have a lot more work than others, some far less).
In the short term he may need to relocate to find work.
A lot of ways to go. A lot of effort needed. Becoming a young father in today's world is indeed taking on huge responsibilities. Need to be significantly more conscientious about making good judgments than he has been (not the best judgment to father a child when one does not have work, especially when an international border and issues with immigration status loom in between mother and father).