I think we should remind ourselves how little we actually know about the specific situation with Richards and the Kings organization...so I am making general comments only and none about who is or is not acting appropriately regarding this.
That said, no matter what the NHL and NHLPA rules / CBA say, players have to deal with the actual immigration laws of Canada and the US.
Examples of players who got around issues before the 'global war on terror' became a thing are basically not relevant...this is not the same border-crossing world that it once was. And just because there are other celebrities or pro athletes that have managed to make their situations workable, doesn't mean all such people can.
Have a read of this page to see the myriad of reasons someone can be declared inadmissible to the US:
http://www.uscis.gov/iframe/ilink/do...-0-0-2006.html
For example, the fact that you are determined to be a drug abuser or addict can on its own make it so the US will never let you into their country.
Also, you certainly do not have to be convicted of anything ever to be ruled inadmissible for criminality. Simply admitting to facts / events that would amount to a violation of drug laws virtually anywhere in the world can make you inadmissible.
(Some posters might want to go back and delete admissions they have made on this forum and other online posts).
If the US "has reason to believe" you are involved in illicit drug trafficking they can deem you inadmissible.
Even being married to or the kid of a person involved in drug trafficking can get you barred...if you get money from them and ought to know where it came from.
Yes there are exceptions and waivers and many opportunities to try and rehabilitate your status with Homeland Security...but just because they exist there is no way to force a country to allow you one.
I don't see why so many seem so unwilling to accept that being unable to come to work to perform your duties could be a legitimate material breach of any employment contract...and that an employer could be entirely justified in terminating the relationship.
If a Canadian who has an oxy problem cannot go to the US when he is employed by a US business, it is not the oxy problem that is the basis for termination...it is the fact that he can't perform his side of the contract in the place where the contract requires him to be.
Ironically, just this week a senior executive outside of the pro sports world is possibly watching her entire career evaporate for a cross-border oxy incident on June 18:
http://business.financialpost.com/ex...one-into-japan
This is not an issue unique to pro athletes by any means...we likely just hear about their cases in the media more often.