After crossing the border without issue dozens of times in recent years, a man from the U.S. with a fiancee and toddler in Ontario says he was indefinitely barred from Canada last month after a border agent took issue with a set of charges placed on him more than a decade ago.
Ohio resident Jimmy Bailey is a father to six children, five of whom live in Aurora, Ont. with his fiancee, Emily. While Bailey is an American, Emily and the children are Canadian citizens. On most days, Bailey says he serves as a stay-at-home-dad in Aurora to his toddler, Lachlan.
But, Bailey hasn’t seen his fiancee or kids since late March, when he says he was told by a Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) employee that he’d been barred from the country indefinitely.
“It’s been miserable,” Bailey said in an interview from his parent’s basement in Ohio, where he’s been sleeping since being told he cannot return to his family.
Since meeting Emily in 2018, Bailey says he’s crossed the Canada-U.S. border dozens of times a year and, when COVID-19 hit and he sold his business in 2020, those trips increased significantly. He said he doesn’t understand what made the last crossing any different.
“Why in the world would the Canadian government allow me in, probably, 500 times without incident and then all of a sudden say, ‘Oh, wait?’”
Bailey, like anyone with a criminal record, has legal avenues available to gain entry into other countries, but experts say many people don’t know they’re inadmissible, let alone of their options to gain back eligible status. Now that Bailey is aware, he said he’s actively working with a lawyer to try and re-enter Canada, but in the meantime, his young son has grown confused and upset.
“He thinks I’m at the store,” he said. “It’s really, really sad, he doesn’t understand why I can’t come back and every time I talk to him, he cries.”
Jimmy Bailey and his son Lachlan can be seen above. (Handout by Bailey)
‘INADMISSIBLE TO CANADA’
In the early hours of March 27, Bailey said he was making the 10-hour drive from his parents’ home in Ohio back to Canada.
After arriving at the Peace Bridge border crossing, he says he was flagged by a border services agent and told to report to customs, where he was asked “all the usual questions.”
“I waited about 45 minutes and then [the agent] called me up to the glass and said, smiling, ‘Oh, you’re inadmissible to Canada, actually,’” he recalled.
“And I said, ‘What are you talking about? I have a son. I’m a stay-at-home dad to kids with special needs. My wife goes out and works,’” he said.
However, the agent had made up their mind, he said, citing two charges placed on Bailey as a result of a 2010 incident – one that Bailey describes as a complete accident.
When CTV News Toronto reached out to CBSA for further clarification on Bailey’s case, the agency said they couldn’t comment on individual cases under Canada’s Privacy Act.
In a statement, CBSA spokesperson Maria Ladouceur said all of the agency’s officers are “trained in interview, examination and investigative techniques.”
“They use proven indicators, advanced information, intelligence, innovative technology and information-sharing to carry out their mandate,” Ladoucer said.
The admissibility of travellers is decided on a case-by-case basis based on the information presented to the officers, who then must assess the security risk and admissibility of each individual, she said.
‘BIGGEST MISTAKE OF MY LIFE’
The summer Bailey turned 30, his grandfather gave him a clay pigeon launcher, he recalled during the interview.
“I’ve been shooting guns my whole life,” he said. “In rural Ohio, it’s not like in Canada – you hear gunfire on any given summer day. People shoot their guns.”
On a June day in 2010, Bailey said he decided to take advantage of the gift and set up himself up for a session of target practice in the backyard of his then-girlfriend.
The property Bailey was shooting on backed up against a tree line, he said. Behind that, a field, another treeline, and a small lake separated his property with another resident’s – about a mile away, according to Bailey.
Bailey shot clay pigeons for a while, before deciding to switch to his then-girlfriend’s handgun, aiming at what he thought was a “safe backstop,” he explained.
After “about an hour of shooting the handgun,” Bailey said he packed it up, went back inside, and went to bed.
The next day, the sheriff’s department knocked on his door, Bailey recalled – the officers were investigating after a nearby resident had been shot, he said. The man had been struck by a bullet fragment in the groin, the officers informed Bailey.
At first, Bailey said his girlfriend only admitted to shooting at the clay pigeons when questioned by the police, failing to reveal that a handgun had been fired, he said. Bailey said he initially went along with the lie, a move that would turn out to be “the biggest mistake of my life,” he said.
“A few days later, they came back with a warrant.”
Ultimately, Bailey would end up charged by the state of Ohio with one count of negligent assault and one count of obstruction.
“I plead no contest, took the required gun safety course right away, paid my fine, and completed my probation,” he said.
‘NO QUICK FIXES’
According to Andres Pelenur, immigration lawyer with Borders Law Firm in Toronto, Bailey will likely be able to gain access to Canada again, but the journey to a barrier-free entry process could be an arduous one.
“There are no quick fixes,” Pelenur told CTV News Toronto in an interview Thursday.
Anyone arrested or convicted of a crime may be barred from entering Canada and categorized as ‘inadmissible,’ Pelenur said. Those with criminal records crossing the border are evaluated on a case-by-base basis, with the main factor under consideration being the individual’s risk of reoffending.
Because of the case-by-case evaluation, sometimes individuals who are at risk of being deemed inadmissible due to past crimes are allowed in without issue, the lawyer explained. Often, those crossing the border won’t be outright asked if they have a criminal history, Pelenur said — it depends on the agent.
“A lot of people don’t even know that they’re inadmissible,” Pelenur said. “You can be waved through incorrectly from a strict legal perspective, and this happens quite commonly, so they’ll have no clue.”
Bailey said he’s had a border agent flag his criminal history once before, during the pandemic. However, that particular agent, Bailey recalled, deemed his entry to be low-risk and waved him through.
Once someone with a criminal record has been found to be inadmissible, the process to re-entry can be difficult, Pelenur said – for a clean slate, individuals must go through the criminal rehabilitation program, a lengthy process that can’t be initiated until five years after an individual has completed their sentence.
“[Once submitted], it can literally take years to process,” he said. “It can be a real problem for people.”
“It’s a [permit] that allows people to enter Canada when they have a criminal inadmissibility, and they’re not yet allowed to apply or obtain the criminal rehabilitation,” he explained.
A temporary resident permit is only good for one entry and expires after a predetermined amount of time. These permits are granted to individuals whose need to enter or stay in Canada outweighs any possible health or safety risks to Canadian society, as determined by an immigration or a border agent.
At the time of publication, Bailey said he was in the process of applying for a temporary resident permit so that he can see his family as soon as possible and is also seeking to start the criminal rehabiliation process with his lawyer, he said.
LOOKING AHEAD
Canada’s inadmissibility rules can be “harsh,” Pelenur said, and the system, at the end of the day, is not a very permissive one, he added. “But I do think it’s fair,” the lawyer stated.
For Bailey, the matter transcends immigration policy into the personal – he says the bottom line, for him, remains his family. His fiancee has been caring for five children alone for two weeks now, he says, while bringing in their primary income.
“It’s been a complete role reversal,” Bailey said. “I used to stay at home and pretty much run the household – with [five] kids it’s its own full-time job.”
Jimmy and Emily’s family can be seen above. (Handout by Bailey)
In the meantime, he said he’s focusing on getting his temporary permit and consoling his family, including Lachlan, who still doesn’t quite understand the situation.
“He’s starting to freak out when people in his life leave – like when his mom goes to the store,” Bailey said. “He thinks that people aren’t coming back.”
“I just tell him I love him and that I’ll be there as soon as I can.”
PHOENIX (AP) — Arizona voters have approved a constitutional amendment guaranteeing abortion access up to fetal viability, typically after 21 weeks — a major win for advocates of the measure in the presidential battleground state who have been seeking to expand access beyond the current 15-week limit.
Arizona was one of nine states with abortion on the ballot. Democrats have centered abortion rights in their campaigns since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. Abortion-rights supporters prevailed in all seven abortion ballot questions in 2022 and 2023, including in conservative-leaning states.
Arizona for Abortion Access, the coalition leading the state campaign, gathered well over the 383,923 signatures required to put it on the ballot, and the secretary of state’s office verified that enough were valid. The coalition far outpaced the opposition campaign, It Goes Too Far, in fundraising. The opposing campaign argued the measure was too far-reaching and cited its own polling in saying a majority of Arizonans support the 15-week limit. The measure allows post-viability abortions if they are necessary to protect the life or physical or mental health of the mother.
Access to abortion has been a cloudy issue in Arizona. In April, the state Supreme Court cleared the way for the enforcement of a long-dormant 1864 law banning nearly all abortions. The state Legislature swiftly repealed it.
Voters in Arizona are divided on abortion. Maddy Pennell, a junior at Arizona State University, said the possibility of a near-total abortion ban made her “depressed” and strengthened her desire to vote for the abortion ballot measure.
“I feel very strongly about having access to abortion,” she said.
Kyle Lee, an independent Arizona voter, does not support the abortion ballot measure.
“All abortion is pretty much, in my opinion, murder from beginning to end,” Lee said.
The Civil War-era ban also shaped the contours of tight legislative races. State Sen. Shawnna Bolick and state Rep. Matt Gress are among the handful of vulnerable Republican incumbents in competitive districts who crossed party lines to give the repeal vote the final push — a vote that will be tested as both parties vie for control of the narrowly GOP-held state Legislature.
Both of the Phoenix-area lawmakers were rebuked by some of their Republican colleagues for siding with Democrats. Gress made a motion on the House floor to initiate the repeal of the 1864 law. Bolick, explaining her repeal vote to her Senate colleagues, gave a 20-minute floor speech describing her three difficult pregnancies.
While Gress was first elected to his seat in 2022, Bolick is facing voters for the first time. She was appointed by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors to fill a seat vacancy in 2023. She has not emphasized her role in the repeal vote as she has campaigned, instead playing up traditional conservative issues — one of her signs reads “Bolick Backs the Blue.”
Voters rejected a measure to eliminate retention elections for state Superior Court judges and Supreme Court justices.
The measure was put on the ballot by Republican legislators hoping to protect two conservative justices up for a routine retention vote who favored allowing the Civil War-era ban to be enforced — Shawnna Bolick’s husband, Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick, and Justice Kathryn Hackett King. Since the measure did not pass, both are still vulnerable to voter ouster, though those races hadn’t been decided by early Wednesday morning.
Under the existing system, voters decide every four to six years whether judges and justices should remain on the bench. The proposed measure would have allowed the judges and justices to stay on the bench without a popular vote unless one is triggered by felony convictions, crimes involving fraud and dishonesty, personal bankruptcy or mortgage foreclosure.
OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Nebraska voters supported a measure Tuesday that enshrines the state’s current ban on abortions after the 12th week of pregnancy in the state constitution, and they rejected a competing measure that sought to expand abortion rights. Nebraska was the first state to have competing abortion amendments on the same ballot since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, ending the nationwide right to abortion and allowing states to decide for themselves. The dueling measures were among a record number of petition-initiated measures on Nebraska’s ballot Tuesday.
What were the competing abortion measures?
A majority of voters supported a measure enshrining the state’s current ban on abortion after the first 12 weeks of pregnancy in the state constitution. The measure will also allow for further restrictions. Last year, the Legislature passed the 12-week ban, which includes exceptions for cases of rape and incest and to protect the life of the pregnant woman.
Voters rejected the other abortion measure. If they had passed it by a larger number of “for” votes than the 12-week measure, it would have amended the constitution to guarantee the right to have an abortion until viability — the standard under Roe that is the point at which a fetus might survive outside the womb. Some babies can survive with medical help after 21 weeks of gestation.
Abortion was on the ballot in several other states, as well. Coming into the election, voters in all seven states that had decided on abortion-related ballot measures since the reversal of Roe had favored abortion rights, including in some conservative states.
Who is behind the Nebraska abortion measures?
The 12-week ban measure was bankrolled by some of Nebraska’s wealthiest people, including Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts, who previously served as governor and donated more than $1.1 million. His mother, Marlene Ricketts, gave $4 million to the cause. Members of the Peed family, which owns publishing company Sandhills Global, also gave $1 million.
The effort was organized under the name Protect Women and Children and was heavily backed by religious organizations, including the Nebraska Catholic Conference, a lobbying group that has organized rallies, phone banks and community townhalls to drum up support for the measure.
The effort to enshrine viability as the standard was called Protect Our Rights Nebraska and had the backing of several medical, advocacy and social justice groups. Planned Parenthood donated nearly $1 million to the cause, with the American Civil Liberties Union, I Be Black Girl, Nebraska Appleseed and the Women’s Fund of Omaha also contributing significantly to the roughly $3.7 million raised by Protect Our Rights.
What other initiatives were on Nebraska’s ballot?
Nebraska voters approved two measures Tuesday that will create a system for the use and manufacture of medical marijuana, if the measures survive an ongoing legal challenge.
The measures legalize the possession and use of medical marijuana, and allow for the manufacture, distribution and delivery of the drug. One would let patients and caregivers possess up to 5 ounces (142 grams) of marijuana if recommended by a doctor. The other would create the Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission, which would oversee the private groups that would manufacture and dispense the drug.
Those initiatives were challenged over allegations that the petition campaign that put them on the ballot broke election rules. Nebraska’s attorney general said supporters of the measures may have submitted several thousand invalid signatures, and one man has been charged in connection with 164 allegedly fraudulent signatures. That means a judge could still invalidate the measures.
Voters also opted Tuesday to repeal a new conservative-backed law that allocates millions of dollars in taxpayer money to fund private school tuition.
Finally, they approved a measure that will require all Nebraska employers to provide at least 40 hours of paid sick leave to their employees.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Voters in Missouri cleared the way to undo one of the nation’s most restrictive abortion bans in one of seven victories for abortion rights advocates, while Florida, Nebraska and South Dakota defeated similar constitutional amendments, leaving bans in place.
Abortion rights amendments also passed in Arizona, Colorado, Maryland and Montana. Nevada voters also approved an amendment, but they’ll need to pass it again it 2026 for it to take effect. Another that bans discrimination on the basis of “pregnancy outcomes” prevailed in New York.
The results include firsts for the abortion landscape, which underwent a seismic shift in 2022 when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, a ruling that ended a nationwide right to abortion and cleared the way for bans to take effect in most Republican-controlled states.
They also came in the same election that Republican Donald Trump won the presidency. Among his inconsistent positions on abortion has been an insistence that it’s an issue best left to the states. Still, the president can have a major impact on abortion policy through executive action.
In the meantime, Missouri is positioned to be the first state where a vote will undo a ban on abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with an amendment that would allow lawmakers to restrict abortions only past the point of a fetus’ viability — usually considered after 21 weeks, although there’s no exact defined time frame.
But the ban, and other restrictive laws, are not automatically repealed. Advocates now have to ask courts to overturn laws to square with the new amendment.
“Today, Missourians made history and sent a clear message: decisions around pregnancy, including abortion, birth control, and miscarriage care are personal and private and should be left up to patients and their families, not politicians,” Rachel Sweet, campaign manager of Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, said in a statement.
Roughly half of Missouri’s voters said abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to AP VoteCast, a survey of more than 2,200 of the state’s voters. But only about 1 in 10 said abortion should be illegal in all cases; nearly 4 in 10 said abortion should be illegal in most cases.
Bans remain in place in three states after votes
Florida, Nebraska and South Dakota became the first states since Roe was overturned where abortion opponents prevailed on a ballot measure. Most voters supported the Florida measure, but it fell short of the required 60% to pass constitutional amendments in the state. Most states require a simple majority.
The result was a political win for Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican with a national profile, who had steered state GOP funds to the cause. His administration has weighed in, too, with a campaign against the measure, investigators questioning people who signed petitions to add it to the ballot and threats to TV stations that aired one commercial supporting it.
Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the national anti-abortion group SBA Pro-Life America, said in a statement that the result is “a momentous victory for life in Florida and for our entire country,” praising DeSantis for leading the charge against the measure.
The defeat makes permanent a shift in the Southern abortion landscape that began when the state’s six-week ban took effect in May. That removed Florida as a destination for abortion for many women from nearby states with deeper bans and also led to far more women from the state traveling to obtain abortion. The nearest states with looser restrictions are North Carolina and Virginia — hundreds of miles away.
“The reality is because of Florida’s constitution a minority of Florida voters have decided Amendment 4 will not be adopted,” said Lauren Brenzel, campaign director for the Yes on 4 Campaign said while wiping away tears. “The reality is a majority of Floridians just voted to end Florida’s abortion ban.”
In South Dakota, another state with a ban on abortion throughout pregnancy with some exceptions, the defeat of an abortion measure was more decisive. It would have allowed some regulations related to the health of the woman after 12 weeks. Because of that wrinkle, most national abortion-rights groups did not support it.
Voters in Nebraska adopted a measure that allows more abortion restrictions and enshrines the state’s current 12-week ban and rejected a competing measure that would have ensured abortion rights.
Other states guaranteed abortion rights
Arizona’s amendment will mean replacing the current law that bans abortion after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy. The new measure ensures abortion access until viability. A ballot measure there gained momentum after a state Supreme Court ruling in April found that the state could enforce a strict abortion ban adopted in 1864. Some GOP lawmakers joined with Democrats to repeal the law before it could be enforced.
In Maryland, the abortion rights amendment is a legal change that won’t make an immediate difference to abortion access in a state that already allows it.
It’s a similar situation in Montana, where abortion is already legal until viability.
The Colorado measure exceeded the 55% of support required to pass. Besides enshrining access, it also undoes an earlier amendment that barred using state and local government funding for abortion, opening the possibility of state Medicaid and government employee insurance plans covering care.
A New York equal rights law that abortion rights group say will bolster abortion rights also passed. It doesn’t contain the word “abortion” but rather bans discrimination on the basis of “pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy.” Sasha Ahuja, campaign director of New Yorkers for Equal Rights, called the result “a monumental victory for all New Yorkers” and a vote against opponents who she says used misleading parental rights and anti-trans messages to thwart the measure.
The results end a win streak for abortion-rights advocates
Until Tuesday, abortion rights advocates had prevailed on all seven measures that have appeared on statewide ballots since the fall of Roe.
The abortion rights campaigns have a big fundraising advantage this year. Their opponents’ efforts are focused on portraying the amendments as too extreme rather than abortion as immoral.
Currently, 13 states are enforcing bans at all stages of pregnancy, with some exceptions. Four more bar abortion in most cases after about six weeks of pregnancy — before women often realize they’re pregnant. Despite the bans, the number of monthly abortions in the U.S. has risen slightly, because of the growing use of abortion pills and organized efforts to help women travel for abortion. Still, advocates say the bans have reduced access, especially for lower-income and minority residents of the states with bans.
The issue is resonating with voters. About one-fourth said abortion policy was the single most important factor for their vote, according to AP VoteCast, a sweeping survey of more than 110,000 voters nationwide. Close to half said it was an important factor, but not the most important. Just over 1 in 10 said it was a minor factor.
The outcomes of ballot initiatives that sought to overturn strict abortion bans in Florida and Missouri were very important to a majority of voters in the states. More than half of Florida voters identified the result of the amendment as very important, while roughly 6 in 10 of Missouri’s voters said the same, the survey found.
___
Associated Press reporters Hannah Fingerhut and Amanda Seitz contributed to this article.
___
This article has been corrected to reflect in the ‘other states’ section that Montana, not Missouri, currently allows abortion until viability.
Jimmy Bailey and his son Lachlan can be seen above. (Handout by Bailey)
Jimmy and Emily’s family can be seen above. (Handout by Bailey)
