Border Fail

Drive Like a Canadian and Get A Bullet Up Your Ass

2011-08-22T09:07:00.001-07:00

“You can drive any way you want in Canada. But if you drive that way down here somebody might put a bullet up your ass.”

That was the advice Joel Helle, an officer with 9 years working for CBP, gave to a Canadian driver just after he grabbed the driver by the neck. But let’s recount what happened.

From the story in thenorthernlight.com, an SUV with BC plates drifted into Helle’s lane on the interstate. Both vehicles eventually pulled over, and Helle – feeling that the driver had tried to run him off the road – started banging on the driver’s window with his CBP badge. When the driver rolled his window down, he asked if he had tried to run him off the road because he was a CBP agent (he was in plain clothes and in his own vehicle at the time).

Then when the driver reached for something in the center console of the SUV, that’s when Helle chocked him.

Helle was convicted of felony harassment, which he had pleaded guilty to. Part of his sentence is mandatory anger management training and evaluation.

This is obviously an isolated case, but it shows the potential danger of giving carte-blanche authority to people who are not mentally/emotionally sound enough to use it professionally.

Gut Feelings and Misinformation

2011-08-17T04:43:00.001-07:00

CBP had to do a bit of damage control after one of their own called the Port Angeles border patrol office a black hole with no mission or purpose, and that they had very little work to perform. Interestingly, the officer has gone off the radar although he’s supposedly still working for CBP (one can only imagine what happens internally to those that speak out in such a way).

Back to the damage control though – so the Port Angeles supervisor, Jose Romero, addressed the Port Angeles Regional Chamber of Commerce on Monday at a luncheon, wanting to reaffirm them that the CBP presence did have value, that they weren’t short of work, they weren’t a black hole, etc. etc. You can read about the event from the SeattlePI website here.

Now, I’m going to assume that article follows good journalistic integrity, and that anywhere there’s quotes indicates something that was actually said. So let’s examine some of the soundbites shall we?

Romero devoted much of his 45-minute presentation to immigration issues, adding that an immigration violation can be charged as a felony.

Border Patrol checkpoints are "part of what we do," he added. "We look for ways to determine who is coming into this country illegally and who hasn't."

Questioning someone's immigration status comes partly from a "gut feeling" the agent might have about the person and often begins by "just going up to someone and saying, 'Hi, how are you?'" Romero said.

"There is a very short window to make the determination to go to the next level," he said.

That next level could include asking for a name and date of birth, which agents run through a database.

I don’t doubt that “gut feelings” are part of any law enforcement process. Of course, this means that people can be singled out not necessarily due to one’s appearance or mannerism, but even if the officer doesn’t understand what you do for a living.

Also interesting is that “asking for a name and date of birth” is the “next level”. All people need to present a passport when entering the US, which brings up their information from a database. In fact, for those that have never experienced it, it usually starts with:

Hello. Where are you going? What for? How long will you be in the US? Where are you staying? Who do you work for?

I found it funny that what’s presented is some sort of watered down version of reality – that based on how someone responds to “how are you” determines if they’re inspected further. Everyone is inspected further. The only “next level” is secondary inspection.

Alright, let’s look at a second bit from the article:

"The northern border has now become the focal point," Romero said. "It's extremely porous."

Canada has not been the easiest partner to work with in monitoring the shared boundary despite the existence of what Romero said were "75 known factions of some kind of terrorist group" in that country.

"It's not as good as I would like," Romero said of "cooperation" from Canada. "We're working hard to get that relationship going."

Hmm…pretty sure there’s more drug, violent crime, and illegal immigration activity happening at the south Jose, so while Canada might be a focal point for you to justify your role, I don’t think we present as much danger as you think.

Wait, wait…he did mention that there are 75 known factions of some kind of terrorist group in Canada. Here’s the funny thing: Canada actually only lists 43 groups as known terrorist organizations, so not sure where the other 32 came from (maybe the US has a different list?). And I’m happy to hear that cooperation from Canada isn’t as good as they’d like, only because what we’ve seen from the US is “cooperation” usually means “give us what we want”. Considering that Canada customs asked me where I was staying after my last trip to the US, I’m pretty sure there’s quite a bit of information already being shared.

Whether the Port Angeles post is a black hole or not, or whether we’ll ever see that young officer who blew the whistle, we’ll probably never know. What we do know from this luncheon is that the Port Angeles Regional Chamber of Commerce got a rosier, American-friendly picture of border security that may not accurately reflect what’s really happening.

Canada–Come for the Bingo, Stay for the Jail

2011-08-02T13:16:00.001-07:00

She was handcuffed, interrogated, and strip searched by border guards. A jar of motor oil in the back of her vehicle tested positive for heroin, and thus began a horrible ordeal by a 66 year old grandmother that resulted in spending 12 days in a remand center. All charges of drug trafficking were dropped when the test that originally detected heroin was proved wrong – there was no heroin.

What US border station did this atrocity happen at? None. It was at the Canadian border station at Sprague, Manitoba. Watch this interview with Mrs. Goodin to hear the details of her ordeal:

Well doesn’t this just give us an insight into the inner workings of our CBSA agents. An organization that demands truth and honesty is free to make up things like how a drug-sniffing dog found traces of cocaine, pot, and meth. Also, we don’t really know details yet of how that test was performed…and was a second one done to ensure that the first one was correct?

And the crown in this case, asking that she *not* be allowed to stay at her daughter’s home because she’s a flight risk? You’d think we elected our crown attorneys and someone was up for a re-election year, having to show how “tough on crime” he/she is.

This is the type of thing that happens in the movies, and/or in different countries; not Canada! The CBSA has a great deal to explain here, and Vic Toews has already asked the CBSA head to provide a report on the incident. Of course, we may never know how badly they screwed this incident up citing the oh-so-convenient “privacy concerns”.

Mrs. Goodin, on behalf of my country I apologize for your ordeal and I hope that if you do decide to bring civil action against the CBSA, that you win and get every dollar you deserve for such an obvious abuse of power by a group of empowered bullies!

Conceding to American Pressure–How Canadian

2011-07-17T01:04:00.001-07:00

American fisherman were in uproar earlier this month when one of their own was fined $1000 for not reporting in to Canada’s CBSA (Customs and Border Services Agency) once he had crossed into Canada’s waters. By law you can’t cross in and fish without first contacting CBSA. From an article on Syracuse.com:

Andersen was acting under the long-standing belief by many Americans who have fished or enjoyed recreational boating on the river that as long as one doesn't anchor or set foot on Canadian land, there's no problem. Since the incident, Canadian customs officials have said that's not the case.

OUTRAGE! Americans rallied, even getting Representative Bill Owens involved and calling Canada’s Ambassador Gary Doer’s response “unacceptable”. A meeting with CBSA representatives didn’t resolve anything other than re-state the rules, and another article suggests that Canadians have it easier than their US counterparts when it comes to fishing rules.

In the end, Canada compromised and issued a statement announcing an amendment to the rules – fisherman can now call in via cell phone to CBSA when they cross into Canadian waters.

I’m conflicted on how this went down. On one hand, I’m actually very proud of Canada that we did the right thing and made concessions to our American neighbors. This is how two countries so close together should handle border issues.

On the other hand, I’m very frustrated that if this situation was reversed, it would never have gotten the same attention from our southern neighbor. In fact there are so many instances of injustice where people aren’t just fined but barred from entering the US, even after living and establishing a life there, that Canada’s quickness to move on this seems outrageous.

I’m thinking of writing Gary Doer myself, highlighting issues with the border we currently have and some possible solutions for them. If a bunch of American fishermen can whine and get what they want, I think some reciprocities on other items is due.

Thoughts From A CBP Secondary Inspection Area

2011-07-17T00:10:00.001-07:00

She’s anxious. Sitting with her husband, they talk to each other in their native Chinese dialect while looking at their watch. She flags down a CBP officer and points out that their flight will board soon. They, like me, have been chosen for a “random” luggage inspection. When that happens your checked luggage is retrieved from wherever it is in the airport and put through a luggage scanner again (I say again as this is the same machine the TSA use). Of course, the goal of this isn’t just to have a closer look at your luggage – its an opportunity to further scrutinize why you’re travelling to the USA.

The CBP officer tells the woman bluntly that its not her (the CBP officer) fault that she (the woman) didn’t give herself enough time to clear customs when arranging her flight. The woman returns to her seat, still upset.

Meanwhile, the guy sitting across from me has been called up. His luggage has arrived and will be inspected. I watch as the CBP officer goes through his backpack. He also requests his wallet and goes through it.

Another guy at the next numbered counter area is getting himself in trouble. It sounds like he’s going to the US on business, and he’s gotten a visa previously. He’s giving the CBP officer attitude, assuming that since he’s gotten a visa before he should be able to get it again and he’s also trying to avoid or be evasive with his answers to their questions. Another CBP officer joins the discussion, clarifying that visas are evaluated on a case-by-case basis and that the guy should be more respectful of the CBP office and its role. The original CBP officer he was dealing with steps back into the conversation, asking the guy what part of his question he was having trouble understanding. “Do you have some sort of hearing impediment sir, is that why you aren’t understanding me?” he asks. After the lecture, the man is asked to have a seat, they’ll call him up later.

I watch the clock on the wall. 45 minutes to my flight leaving…30 minutes to my flight leaving…I realize that more than likely I’ll miss my flight. There is no urgency in retrieving the luggage, or moving the luggage through the secondary inspection. Finally my name is called, and the officer sends my bag through the scanner. He then asks me some questions – where I’m going, why, when I’m coming back – he’s typing things into his computer, then stamps my passport and walks me out. I have 15 minutes to find my gate.

As he walks me out, we pass the Chinese couple. She’s on her cellphone letting someone know about their situation. Unfortunately, you can’t use cellphones within the secondary screening area. The CBP officer tells the woman to turn off her cell phone.

I was lucky, I made my flight and my bag made it too. I wonder what happened to the Chinese couple, the gentleman who had the extensive search, and the businessman (I’m pretty sure he didn’t make it to the US that day).

This little view within a CBP secondary inspection area illustrates some very important aspects of US border security.

CBP is Not There to Facilitate Your Travel

The frank response to the Chinese lady from the CBP officer that it “wasn’t her fault” she didn’t plan her flights properly isn’t wrong. The CBP is not a travel agency, they’re a security agency. Security trumps everything, including your travel plans. There are reasons why its suggested you get to the airport a few hours early for flights to the US, and CBP is a key reason why.

CBP is Not There to Facilitate Your Business

The guy who was engaging the officers about his visa and previous visits wasn’t doing himself any favors. Especially with the current US economic crisis, there’s a heightened sense of protectionism even if its not overt and blatant. Just because *you* think you qualify for a TN visa doesn’t mean you do – its up to the officer’s discretion. And even if you have a higher-level visa beyond a TN, there’s many instances that show simply having one doesn’t guarantee you’ll be allowed entry into the US.

CBP are People, but We’re Not Their People

One thing that I noted about my time in secondary – the officers were talking and acting like regular people at a workplace. Discussions were what you’d expect at a typical workplace, smiles even. But that was to each other. To the people on the other side of the counter, the demeanor and interaction became serious and formal. Don’t assume you can have the same repoire with a CBP officer as you would with a government employee.

America Is A Different Country

It’s easy to forget that America is a different country from so many in the western world. There are so many similarities, so much shared information, shared culture – but the borders are real, and the underlying political and social differences between countries are real as well. Nobody has a right to enter another country, and if you go in remembering that and knowing what the rules are for your travel purpose, the less risk of being turned away at the border.

Dysfunction Hinders US Border Protection

2011-02-01T11:29:00.001-08:00

The headline to this article reads:

Congressional report cites fresh concerns about security of Canada-U.S. border

A new US government report has been released on the US/Canada border situation. Oh boy, here we go again; another rant about the unsecure northern border and Canada’s loose immigration laws. At least, that’s what I thought when I started reading it. There is, to be sure, comments like this one from Joe Lieberman:

"Canadians do have more lenient asylum and immigration laws than we do here and that potentially has an effect on us because of our border,"

The vast size of the northern border was brought up as well, with only approximately 50 kms of the 6400 km border being controlled by US border patrols.

But what was really interesting was what the report the article is talking about says about DHS internally, and how dysfunction between internal factions is hindering border security. From the article:

Among other findings, the GAO report said petty rivalries between myriad federal and state agencies patrolling the border are undermining efforts to crack down not just on drug smugglers, but illegal immigrants and potential terrorists.

…some units within Homeland Security clash over who conducts border surveillance, who interviews detained immigrants and who gets credit for apprehensions, seizures and prosecutions.

Efforts, in fact, to police the border have been tainted by rivalries that "may result in inefficiencies and a breakdown of co-ordination, ultimately leading to the risk of a border that is less secure.''

Various U.S. agencies also fail to share information with one another due to mutual distrust, the report found.

Interestingly, the bright spot in regards to cooperation and sharing of information came between Canada and US departments.

So what does all this mean? Maybe the northern border is a concern. Maybe the US should step up their presence there. The article mentions that Joe Lieberman is calling for more funding and tougher security measures…maybe they need that.

Or maybe they should figure out why there’s so much distrust, inefficiencies, and rivalries within DHS. It makes one wonder how effective border security would be if everyone was reminded they’re working for the same team.

Update – I came across an article from The Vancouver Sun that also talked about the report and Joe Lieberman’s comments. What wasn’t mentioned in the Winnipeg Free Press article was this little gem:

Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security committee, said the findings confirm that security efforts are "unacceptably ineffective." He said the report has raised enough concerns that he feels it is time for the U.S. and Canada to discuss whether it makes sense to require Canadians to have visas in order to enter the United States.

"I think it is something that we should be talking about with our Canadian neighbours," Lieberman told reporters.

Now, this is *just* Joe Lieberman making these comments, not Obama or the entire GOP conglomerate. Still, they need to refocus on the real issues: the dysfunction within DHS that is preventing real security from being implemented in the first place.

National Opt Out Day November 24th

2010-11-12T07:39:00.001-08:00

The US recently released new regulations for air travel security that has many people angry and upset. You’ve probably heard about the full body scanners that have been installed in airports around North America (I say North America because they exist in Canadian airports for US bound flights). The general idea: they take an x-ray-like picture of you which is reviewed by a central command center offsite to determine if you’re trying to smuggle anything onto the plane.

The images are only clothes deep though, meaning what is seen is a naked image of you…all sides, all appendages, including breasts and genitals.

You don’t have to go through the scanner though. Instead, you can opt for a pat down. So given a choice between being subjected to some level of radiation and someone seeing you naked, some people would rather go for the regular old patdown.

Except its not the regular old pat down anymore. For a real-life account of what the new pat downs involve, check out Jeffrey Goldberg’s article in The Atlantic. Here’s a short outtake though:

At BWI, I told the officer who directed me to the back-scatter that I preferred a pat-down. I did this in order to see how effective the manual search would be. When I made this request, a number of TSA officers, to my surprise, began laughing. I asked why. One of them -- the one who would eventually conduct my pat-down -- said that the rules were changing shortly, and that I would soon understand why the back-scatter was preferable to the manual search. I asked him if the new guidelines included a cavity search.

"No way. You think Congress would allow that?"

I answered, "If you're a terrorist, you're going to hide your weapons in your anus or your vagina." He blushed when I said "vagina."

"Yes, but starting tomorrow, we're going to start searching your crotchal area" -- this is the word he used, "crotchal" -- and you're not going to like it."

"What am I not going to like?" I asked.

"We have to search up your thighs and between your legs until we meet resistance," he explained.

The article goes on to suggest that TSA is making the pat downs so much more uncomfortable than the full body scanners that people will opt for the lesser of the two embarrassments (here’s a link to a follow up article Jeffrey wrote about another experience).

So of course there’s a number of people in the US that are pissed at all of this “security theatre”, to the point that they’ve organized the National Opt Out Day. The goal, from their website, is…

…to send a message to our lawmakers that we demand change. No naked body scanners, no government-approved groping. We have a right to privacy and buying a plane ticket should not mean that we're guilty until proven innocent. This day is needed because many people do not understand what they consent to when choosing to fly.

How do you achieve this goal? By encouraging EVERYONE flying on November 24th (apparently one of the busiest travel days in the US) to opt for the pat down.

Wait…say what?! OPT for the pat down?! Yes…because, the logic goes, the pat down takes way longer to perform than simply stepping into the scanner. The lines would backlog and cause huge delays, making people upset and TSA staff frustrated, and negate the benefits of those scanners.

It’s an interesting tactic and we’ll see how much of an effect this will have on air travel that day, but I suspect that the majority of travellers are focussed on getting to their destination and unfortunately that means that they’ll do whatever is the fastest method of getting through security.

More and more, the train is looking to be a better travel option.

DHS Being Sued Over Electronic Equipment Searches

2010-09-28T08:00:00.001-07:00

Earlier this month the Montreal Gazette wrote about Pascal Abidor, a man with France and US citizenship who was the subject of secondary-inspection by US border agents which resulted in:

- Losing his laptop for 11 days
- Being frisked, handcuffed, and placed in a cell
- Fingerprinted and photographed
- Released…3 hours later

Getting the ACLU involved seemed to be what helped get his laptop back sooner than later, and (from the article)…

He is now one of the plaintiffs, along with the National Association of Defence Lawyers and the National Press Photographers Association, suing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to have policies regarding electronic equipment changed.

Unfortunately for Pascal, he was the perfect storm for determining who should be flagged for secondary inspection:

- Muslim
- Doing his Ph D in modern Shiite history
- Pictures of Hamas and Hezbollah on his laptop
- Foreign citizenship and studying in a different country, but travelling to NY to visit family

Now he’s in the system, as he realized when he flew from London to New Jersey a few months later and was detained again. I love the comment in the article:

…agents seemed to have inside information about Abidor, asking about the last time he was stopped, how he pays for travels, his girlfriend and Ph.D. and whether he was Muslim.

This shouldn’t be a surprise, as we all know that when you get sent to secondary inspection you’re flagged in the system, especially after fingerprints and other information is gathered.

Unfortunately I don’t know how successful the lawsuit is going to be. It’ll come down to the rule of law against the fear of terrorism, and unfortunately its much easier to succumb to fear. Still, for foreigners this is another example of why crossing into the US can be dangerous. If this is how they treat their own, how do you think they’ll treat those from other countries?

The Liar, the Car, and the Cell Phone – CBSA and Your Privacy

2010-07-11T09:51:00.001-07:00

Oh poor Derrick Anderson. He went to the Minneapolis area to buy a cheap car, came back to the Canadian border and lied about how much he actually paid for it to avoid paying extra money in duty and taxes (y’know, THE LAW). (Click here to read the Winnipeg Sun article)

A CBSA officer then went into his new car, found his cell phone, and proceeded to read his text messages; one of which showed the actual price he paid. With this new info, the poor lad had to come up with $5100 on the spot to cover the tax and other fees…a call to Daddy helped out.

Now he and his father are making an issue out of this in the local media, admitting that Derrick lied but focussing on the “invasion of privacy” from the border guard rifling through his text messages.

I’m not really going to comment on the fact that this guy is a loser for trying to mask his attempt at fraud by saying it was an “error in judgement”. You want to go to the US and get cheaper products, fine. But don’t try to screw over the Canadian economy that so richly provides you with, among other things, free health care by not paying your fair share of taxes at the border. Even with the $5100 tax tag applied, I’m sure the car was still cheaper than purchasing it up here.

Instead, let’s focus on the privacy concern. Did the CBSA officer have the authority to search the cell phone? According to the CBSA spokesperson, yes:

CBSA regional spokeswoman Lisa White said the federal Customs Act’s Section 99 allows border personnel to look closely at a wide range of possessions in vehicles.

“And that also includes examination of electronic devices such as laptops, cellphones and iPods,” she said. “These searches are authorized by law.”

That’s right folks, the Canadian Border Services Agency has full authority to examine what’s on your laptop, cell phone, external hard drive, etc. How do you think they catch those guys with child porn?

Not sure why this should be a surprise since the US instituted a similar directive last year. Still, a refresher might be in order.

If you leave Canada and try to return, realize that any aspect of your trip and/or possessions can be scrutinized by our own border guards. Just because you’re Canadian doesn’t mean you just get a free pass back into the country. I gave some travel tips in the link I just posted above, but let me add a few others.

Password Protect Your Data
Set your cell phone to require a password, same with your laptop and anything else. Now, this won’t prevent a search, but at least you’ll be aware of any searches that could occur.

Don’t Communicate What You Don’t Want Seen
Anything that could be searched, like text messages, email history on your laptop or files, etc. are all searchable by border guards on both sides of the US/Canada border. You don’t want it searched, don’t bring them or delete them from your device before you hit the border.

Our personal privacy does not extend to re-entry into the country, right or wrong. It’s the game that we’re forced to play, so know the rules before you play (and be aware of the consequences if you try to cheat).

Clarification on USCIS General Inquiry Mailbox

2010-07-05T08:35:00.001-07:00

I blogged back in February about my experience trying to get answers through the USCIS General Inquiry Mailbox set up for Canadians to ask “general immigration questions”. I talked about my frustration with the response, which was basically “Contact CBP”.

A recent article posted by Lane Powell over at Lexology.com offers some insight and clarification on what the new email address is really for. From the article:

Not all inquiries can be handled through Canada@dhs.gov. For Canadians, many immigration issues and matters are processed at the U.S.-Canada border through a separate Homeland Security agency, Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”). For example, petitions for intracompany transfers from a foreign company to a related U.S. entity, and Trade NAFTA (“TN”) applications can be processed on a while-you-wait basis at U.S ports of entry. Because CBP is a separate agency from USCIS, port of entry-related questions likely cannot be answered through Canada@dhs.gov.

So really, the email response I received was the correct one; they couldn’t answer my questions because they’re not the right department to be forwarding those questions to.

Ah the tangled web that is the multiple departments within DHS.

Arizona’s Immigration Law and Canadians

2010-06-26T23:18:00.001-07:00

Great article over on lexology.com by Veronica K. Choy talking about the effect Arizona’s new immigration law has on Canadians.

If you’re not familiar with the law, currently if you enter the US illegally then you are an illegal alien…but that’s at the federal level. Arizona passed a law making it illegal at the state level to be an illegal alien. This means that state and local law enforcement now has the ability to stop anyone where “reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States.”

From Veronica’s article:

Further, the law further states that a person is presumed to NOT be illegal if he/she is able to provide: (1) a valid Arizona driver’s license, (2) a valid Arizona Non-operating identification license, (3) a valid tribal enrolment card or other form of tribal identification or any valid US federal, state or local government issued identification (but only if the issuance of that identification is based upon proof of legal presence).

Which brings us to the critical question: “What Canadian, who is visiting Arizona on a temporary basis, would have any of the above listed documentation?”

I can answer that for you Veronica: Practically none! While this law is targeted at illegal aliens crossing over from Mexico, keep in mind that Canadians are just as foreign as anyone from any other country visiting the US, and laws like these can put us at risk of scrutiny and potential bouts of quality time with local law enforcement if *something* about us is deemed suspicious.

Think you can ignore this if you never visit Arizona? Do you visit Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Maryland, and Colorado? Because according to the article those states are considering tougher immigration laws as well.

Have a read through the article and consider Veronica’s recommendations. And if you’re heading to Arizona, try not to look suspicious.

CBP Hunting for Eggs this Easter

2010-04-02T18:50:00.001-07:00

First off, this is *not* an April Fools post. I really wish it were, but its not.

With Easter approaching, CBP officers will be on the lookout for a particular type of contraband coming in from Canada and Mexico. Cocaine? Heroin? Marijuana? No…the contraband we’re talking about is Kinder Surprise Eggs!

For those that aren’t familiar with them, Kinder Surprise eggs are hollow chocolate eggs that contain a yellow plastic container. Inside that container is a random toy. I grew up with these things, as did children from Mexico, Europe, and South America…but not from the USA.

It turns out that there are two reasons why the treats aren’t allowed in. For one, the US FDA labels it a choking hazard. For another, according to an article by K. Jessie Austin:

Aside from children potentially choking on the toys, the real reason Kinder Eggs are banned is the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938. This Act prohibits the embedding of non-food items completely enclosed inside food items, unless the non-edible part has a functioning value. For example a lollipop or popsicle stick is not edible but is a useful handle. This Act was originally put into place to prevent the addition of hazardous items to processed food and has never been changed.

Luckily for the American public, CBP has been keeping a watchful eye out for these potential CoD’s (Confections of Death)! From a BrownsvilleHerald.com article:

Last year, CBP officers seized more than 25,000 chocolate eggs in more than 2,000 seizures.

So be wary fellow Canadians! You don’t want to be *that* guy or gal that gets kicked out of NEXUS for accidentally bringing a contraband chocolate egg to the border.

Related Articles

CBP Warns Against Chocolate Egg Smuggling
The Brownsville Herald

Why Kinder Eggs Are Banned in the US
AssociatedContent.com

Kinder Surprises: Banned in the U.S.A.
Canada.com

Kinder Surprise
Wikipedia.com

USA – Enter At Your Own Risk (Update on the Peter Watts Incident)

2010-03-28T13:40:00.001-07:00

I blogged back in December about Canadian author Peter Watts and his ordeal trying to come back into Canada from the US. The trial has occurred and with it details of what actually happened.

Peter was not convicted of any assault of an officer…in fact, all those allegations were debunked at trial. He was however convicted of “failing to comply with a lawful command”. What exactly was the failure? Peter describes it from his blog:

So what it came down to, ultimately, was those moments after I was repeatedly struck in the face by Beaudry (an event not in dispute, incidentally). After Beaudry had finished whaling on me in the car, and stepped outside, and ordered me out of the vehicle; after I’d complied with that, and was standing motionless beside the car, and Beaudry told me to get on the ground — I just stood there, saying “What is the problem?”, just before Beaudry maced me.

And that, said the Prosecutor in her final remarks — that, right there, was failure to comply. That was enough to convict.

The statute being used here is Section 750.81d which status, among other things:

(1) Except as provided in subsections (2), (3), and (4), an individual who assaults, batters, wounds, resists, obstructs, opposes, or endangers a person who the individual knows or has reason to know is performing his or her duties is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.

Interesting. So “failure to comply” is being used as a synonym for “obstructs” it seems…how scary that simply questioning a law enforcement officer can net you up to 2 years in prison and/or up to $2,000 in fines.

While the jury did find him guilty, there have been comments supposedly by jury members who have voiced their support for Peter and that they didn’t think he really had done anything wrong, but they couldn’t argue in light of the law: yes, he had “failed to comply”, and thus “obstructed”. You can read a recent post (and subsequent ones) on Peter’s blog that talk about it.

There’s a clear message that’s been sent from this whole endeavour, from CBP, DHS, and the DA’s office:

We’re not reasonable.

It’s obvious officer Beaudry crossed a line, yet we hear nothing of punishment for his zealous actions and because of Peter’s conviction he can’t bring charges up against the officer.

If the jury, after reviewing all the evidence, really didn’t think Peter was guilty of anything other than a very loosely interpreted meaning of “obstructed”, why couldn’t the prosecutor come to the same conclusion?

The fact this went to trial at all is outrageous! Really, this entire episode couldn’t have been rectified civilly without the need for formal charges and a court hearing?

Over at Scott H. Greenfield’s criminal defence blog, he wrote about the case and we get some great insight from someone in the legal system. He writes:

Had the border guard been civil, cooperative, polite, normal, this would never have escalated into a dispute. That's the normal perspective. From the guard's perspective, had Peter Watts just done what he was told to do without challenging the guard's authority to do his job, this wouldn't have escalated into a dispute. The law sides with the guard, since the guard does the dirty work of the law and the law tries to make his job easier in return by providing him with authority far beyond the limits of good judgment. Order is paramount, and would be put at risk if our boys on the front line don't have our blind support.

…

The system didn't fail Peter. The system worked perfectly. It's the expectation that the system exists to satisfy some existential concept of justice that causes the dissonance. Putting aside the axiom that justice is in the eye of the beholder, the system doesn't exists to serve justice. The system exists to maintain order. Did you think otherwise?

…

Like Cory Doctorow, I agree completely that Peter Watts' conviction is absurd and horrible. He was convicted for acting like a normal person under abnormal circumstances. He was convicted for lacking the understanding that when interacting with officials with guns and shields, one bows deeply like a supplicant, just to avoid irritating small minds.

And so I close re-stating the sentiment I had when I first blogged about Peter’s plight. The US is not our country, its not our law, it holds no guarantees or privilege for us. It also hires people like Officer Beaudry to police its borders, and if officers like him are over-zealous in their actions it doesn’t matter – the law is on their side, not ours. We are true foreigners when we cross that border, no longer brothers from different homelands.

USA – Enter at your own risk.

How to Kill a Border Town

2010-03-22T10:55:00.001-07:00

With all the efforts to increase security at the US/Canada border, nobody has been more inconvenienced than border communities. These communities that have grown up seeing their southern or northern neighbours as an extension of themselves are now faced with a new reality; one that includes formality, documentation, and increased police presence.

Consider the communities of Stanstead Quebec and Derby Line Vermont. The image below shows the two border communities. The red line is the US/Canada border. The yellow lines are examples of streets that flow naturally between the two communities, as if it was all built as one village…which it probably was.

(Click to enlarge)

Over to the right, just off the image, is the *official* border crossing location, although from the articles I’ve read there seem to be other border crossing stations throughout the town.

Over the past while the community of Derby Line has seen an increase in police presence, in part because of Operation Stone Garden: an initiative to ask state and local police officers to help assist patrolling the town on behalf of the CBP.

This community has been highlighted twice in the past month, and citizens of both countries have been the recipients of the US DHS’s increased security measures.

Nova Scotia Couple’s Horrible Wrong Turn

The CBC story covers all the details, but in a nutshell:

- Couple dropped off son at his boarding school in Stanstead.
- Driving through the town & looking at buildings, they took a left turn
- They unknowingly entered the US and were stopped by police.

From the article:

"They called border patrol, and immediately, three or four border patrol trucks came and escorted us [to the customs office]."

The couple was escorted to the official, marked border crossing, which is on the main street that runs north-south through both towns.

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers were not sympathetic to the Zwaagstras explanation of how they had innocently crossed the border into the U.S., said Don Zwaagstra.

"They suggested that we could be fined; we could have our vehicle impounded; we could be arrested, deported, a number of things," he said. "You know, a couple of those types of insinuations, and it depended a lot on how our criminal records checked out."

In the end, the Zwaagstra were simply escorted back to Canada — after they were fingerprinted, photographed and forced to sign documents admitting what they had done.

"I couldn't believe it was happening, and I was totally humiliated," Nancy Zwaagstra said. "I was fingerprinted; I had my mug shot taken. It was a terrible feeling."

Two Canadians who unknowingly crossed over on a street with no visible signage about the location of the border, treated like criminals for simply making the wrong turn at a border town.

American Pharmacist and an Expensive Pizza

Consider the story of Roland “Buzz” Roy, an American from Derby Line charged with illegally crossing the border for getting a pizza from a Canadian restaurant. WCAX-3 ran a story about it:

What this highlights is that while Canadians might experience unpleasantness crossing into the US, Americans are exposed to the same experience. Notice that it wasn’t the Canadian security officers that arrested Roland, it was American police.

What Does It All Mean?

For starters, it means the end of the border town. The border is the border, and must be respected as such. Unfortunately, that means drastic changes for communities that for so long have strived to live without noticing that they passed into a different country on a daily basis. For all of the DHS rhetoric about working with border communities, this is a clear example of how they really haven’t understood what the intricacies of border communities really are.

Operation Stone Garden that I mentioned has $60 million US federal dollars backing it…that’s $60 million being spent on overtime for police officers from non-CBP agencies to come up and aid in patrols, catching Canadians who take wrong turns and Americans strolling down the street for a pizza.

In the end, what this means is that if you can you should just avoid border communities at all costs. The treatment and expense a wrong turn can cause is too much risk.

Links

The Raw Story – Border Patrol Arrests Man for Crossing Street

Burlington Free Press – Arrest and New Border Crossing Rules Irritate Derby Line

CBC – N.S. Couple Nabbed After Mistakenly Straying into U.S.

Kerry and Lugar Push Startup Visa Act

2010-02-24T11:49:00.001-08:00

Senators John Kerry and Richard Lugar have introduced The Startup Visa Act in Washington today.

In a nutshell this bill will create a new type of visa that will allow foreign entrepreneurs to set up their company in the US providing they secure a certain amount of investment and produce a certain amount of revenue or job positions.

In a letter meant to circulate to other senators, they highlight the example of a Canadian company who couldn’t set roots in the US and eventually moved to Montreal:

Vanilla (http://www.vanillaforums.com) is an example of a type of company this visa would apply to. Vanilla has two founders, both Canadian. They spent the summer in Boulder, Colorado as part of the TechStars accelerator program getting advice, help, and mentorship from over 50 U.S. based entrepreneurs and investors. Numerous investors were interested in funding Vanilla and helping them to grow their company from Boulder; however neither founder was able to give investors comfort that they could get an appropriate visa to stay and work in the US. Since then, the founders have relocated to Montreal, raised $500,000, and started their company in Canada. Today, they are adding three people to their team, all based in Montreal. If successful, they will add many more people to the team over the next few years.

You can read a letter from the Senators describing the act here.

USCIS General Inquiry Mailbox – A Useless Experience

2010-02-22T08:48:00.001-08:00

I blogged a few weeks back about a new email address created by USCIS that Canadians can use to ask general immigration questions. I sent an email asking for clarification on some scenarios regarding Canadians speaking at conferences in the US. And then I waited.

And waited.

I checked this morning and noticed that I got a response 23 days after my initial email (so last Wednesday)! Finally, here would be the answers I was looking for! I opened the email and saw this:

Thank you for your e-mail.

You need to contact the nearest US Consulate and/or US Customs and Boarder Protection.

Regards,

USCIS/pfcg

Are you kidding me?! Now, let’s play devil’s advocate here and assume my questions were beyond what’s considered “general inquiry”. If so, why not at least state that? “Sorry, your questions are beyond the scope of this service. I must refer you elsewhere.”

And why not provide the contact information for the US Consulates in Canada, or a link to a website with their collective contact info?

And seriously, US Customs and Border Protection? Where do I call for that? The local border office? And seriously…its spelt “Border” not “Boarder”.

So what we have with the USCIS email box is just another tool to confuse and misdirect those that are trying to get straight answers about US immigration.

How disappointing.

H-1B – The Right to Control

2010-02-13T18:30:00.001-08:00

According to some online sources, including Cyrus Mehta (a US Immigration lawyer), the following occurred:

On one fateful day, January 11, 2010, when Continental Airlines Flight 49 landed in Newark from Mumbai, India, we know that [a CBP officer] and his colleagues, hunted through the lines for Indian H-1B workers even before they showed up for primary inspection. Their minds were made up. No detailed questions were asked. The moment they found Indian H-1B workers who uttered that they were working at a client site in the IT field, their fates were sealed. They were subjected to expedited removal orders and sent back to India. Some were luckier and escaped the ER order, but still had to withdraw their applications for admission to the U.S. Nevertheless, they were all coerced into making statements under threat of being detained. CBP officials also made remarks as to why the H-1B workers, singled out for deportation, earned more than U.S. workers and should not be paid so much.

What would instigate such severe scrutiny of Indians holding US-approved visas in their passports? And why should other countries care?

On January 8, 2010, a memorandum was sent from Donald Neufeld, Associate Director for Service Center Operations within the USCIS. You can read a copy of the memorandum here.

The purpose of the memo was…

…intended to provide guidance, in the context of H-1B petitions, on the requirement that a petitioner establish that an employer-employee relationship exists and will continue to exist with the beneficiary throughout the duration of the requested H-1B validity period.

I’ll provide links at the end of this post to some articles that go in depth to explain the contents of the memorandum, but in a nutshell it was directing officers to scrutinize whether an H-1B’s petitioner truly has the right to control and that an employer-employee relationship exists.

The straight-forward situation is between an employer and employee: a company wants to sponsor a foreign worker for an H-1B visa, and that worker will become an employee of the employer.

But there’s another situation that involves three parties instead of two:

Petitioner – This is usually the employer of the individual who will actually hold the visa.

Beneficiary– The individual who will be performing work, an employee of the Petitioner.

Client – The entity that has made an agreement with the Petitioner to have the Beneficiary come and perform work at their location.

In this scenario, the Client is not the employer of the Beneficiary. Even if the Beneficiary is going to be working as part of a team made up of people from the Client, its the Petitioner that ultimately has control over the Beneficiary. And thus lies the problem: since the Petitioner isn’t overseeing the day to day work of the Beneficiary, the Petitioner does not have the right to control over when, where, and how the Beneficiary performs the job. For the H-1B to be valid, the Petitioner’s right to control must be established.

The memorandum I linked to above contains examples showing what would/would not present a valid employer-employee relationship, but I want to briefly mention the ones that don’t apply:

Self-Employed Beneficiaries
The thought here is that if you are your own boss, nobody *really* has any control over you while you’re in the US; you can’t be your own master.

Independent Contractors
Just because you’re contracted to one organization doesn’t mean you couldn’t also be contracted to another. Ergo, the Petitioner doesn’t have the right to control you.

3rd Party Placement/ “Job Shops”
A company needs a software developer for a project their working on. Your company contracts you out to them to fill the need. While you’d you be working there, you’d report to the client’s project manager and they would be directing you in your day to day working tasks. You see where this is going: the client is exercising the right to control, not your employer (who would be the petitioner as well).

Interesting spins on foreigners working in the US isn’t it?

But it begs the question: with the US placing more restrictions on foreign workers and with harsh punishments that unknowing employees could be subject to (that “expedited removal” process mentioned earlier carries with it a 5 year ban on entering the US), what incentive is there for us to even try?

Reference Links

Cyrus D. Mehta Blog

Nation of Immigrators Blog

Jan 8 2010 USCIS Memorandum

USCIS General Inquiry Mailbox – Still Waiting

2010-02-08T06:36:00.001-08:00

I posted a few weeks back about a general inquiry email address setup for Canadians to submit questions to the US Citizenship and Immigration Services department.

On January 25th I submitted an email to them asking for clarification on the rules surrounding Canadians wishing to speak at conferences in the US. A week went by and I heard nothing…not even a “Thanks for your inquiry, here’s the expected timeframe to receive an answer.” So I emailed them again on February 1st asking for verification of receipt and whether I could get a time frame for the response.

Crickets.

So tomorrow will be two weeks since my initial email and I haven’t heard anything. It’s one thing to set up a service and tout how great it is that Canadians have this new avenue for getting info, but its totally another to make it useful and provide value.

I’ll keep watching the inbox, but I’m not holding my breath.

Buy American Deal – Much Speculation

2010-02-04T21:01:00.001-08:00

Tomorrow we should receive official details on the new agreement between Canada and the USA regarding easing the “Buy American” provisions in the US stimulus program.

Until then, we have a number of different views, reports, and speculation being fed by numerous “sources”.

From CTV:

CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife said the deal will be announced Friday at 8:00 a.m. EST. It will allow Canadian firms a chance at what's left of the $900 billion in stimulus spending that Washington announced last year.

Canadian firms will be exempted from "Buy American" restrictions under seven of the stimulus programs, in 37 U.S. states that signed on to the World Trade Organization. Those states will be able to use American stimulus money to buy Canadian manufactured goods.

From The Vancouver Sun:

According to informed sources, the deal would grant Canadian exporters access to procurement markets in the 37 U.S. states covered under the World Trade Organization agreement on government tenders. Further, Canadian companies are freed from Buy American restrictions as they relate to funds remaining in seven programs under the stimulus legislation. In turn, the provinces would agree to open up their procurement markets, roughly valued at $22 billion.

However, sources say what U.S. companies can bid on will be limited, as certain sectors — such as health care, education and correctional facilities — are off limits. The two sides are said to have agreed to continue negotiations on a broader deal governing procurement.

While these stories suggest that this deal presents some measure of progress, whether Canada can take advantage of it now or as a basis for future Buy American-type programs, the CBC dropped a bombshell on The National tonight with their intel on the agreement.

According to the CBC’s report, this “agreement” isn’t really an agreement at all. Instead, Ottawa is signing a WTO agreement. Obama was quoted earlier on in this Buy American fiasco as suggesting that the Canadian provinces were not WTO signatories, and that becoming signatories would allow them to bid for the work. So if this is what the federal government has done then there really isn’t any compromise on the US side…Canada has just rolled over.

Worse yet, signing the WTO agreement means that we’ve now opened up provincial markets to more than 30 other markets that are part of the WTO! So now not only do Canadian firms need to compete against American ones, they also need to compete with firms from Britain, Germany, China, and Japan among others!

If what the CBC is reporting is true, then this has the potential to be a horrible deal for Canada: short term opportunities (if even that) and long term increased competition.

But again, we don’t have the actual deal in hand…these are all speculations from information fed by sources. Still, there’s enough here that we should be nervous about how much we’ve left on the table compared with the Americans…and the WTO countries which might be the biggest beneficiaries of all.

State of the Unions 2010 as it Relates to Border Issues

2010-01-30T20:56:00.001-08:00

I found myself frustrated with the rhetoric coming from the 2010 State of the Union Address this past week. The United States, reeling from one of the worst recessions in history, has tried to shore up the borders, circle the wagons, and focus on improving their economy in a time when so many are struggling.

I have no problem with them doing that. I would expect, in the same situation, that Canada would do the same and that our government would protect our people.

But President Obama made some interesting statements regarding job creation and immigration. He stated in his address:

Third, we need to export more of our goods. Because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America. So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America. To help meet this goal, we're launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security.

This may be music to the ears of Americans, but it puts a more sour taste in the mouths of other countries…especially Canada which has been impacted by the recent “Buy American” programs and sentiment perpetrated by the US government. So not only has Obama closed the door to Canadian business, he wants to see countries like Canada take more of their exports (and we’ve seen already that Canada holds the #1 and #2 rank for export partner to the various states).

The other statement that I cringed at was…

And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system -- to secure our borders and enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation.

First of all…OUCH! The President said the immigration system is broken. That’s a strong statement to make. But its the part where he talks about ensuring that “everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation.”

If you’ve been reading this blog since the beginning, you know that this exists due to issues getting across to do some speaking. Since then, other incidents have popped up that highlight…well, that highlights the broken immigration system that the President referred to. But it also highlighted something else: that the current rules fly in the face of what Obama wishes for immigration. If a Canadian can’t speak at a conference not because he/she is getting paid but because attendees are paying to register, how are those established rules helping to “contribute to [the US] economy and enrich [the US]”?! That’s the problem, they don’t. And that’s the issue with these two statements, made at different stages of the address, but being opposed to each other nonetheless.

You can’t try and push exports through your borders and yet persist outdated immigration rules that are part of a broken immigration system (as Obama referred to it as). If President Obama is serious about immigration reform, specifically on the business and trade side, then there’s only one logical step: renegotiate NAFTA. Call Canada and Mexico to the table and talk about what needs to change, what improvements can be made, and how can we get North America back to being a power-house economical continent.

Until we get past protectionism though, that can’t happen.

A Year Later, The Question Still Remains

2010-01-24T08:54:00.001-08:00

I started this blog after an experience trying to cross the border into the US for a speaking opportunity. While I made some headway, I never really did get a full, clear answer on what the rules are. My mitigation policy: don’t speak in the US. Without knowing all the rules, and with the rules not being readily available and easily accessible, it just wasn’t worth the risk. As it turns out I’ve had an amazing year travelling and speaking within Canada, and my career and opportunities definitely were not diminished because I restricted myself to Canada…quite the opposite actually.

However, I’ve refocused on determining once and for all what the rules are around foreigners (specifically Canadians) performing speaking engagements within the US. The catalyst was the recent experience of a fellow Canadian (and Winnipegger) who had an almost carbon-copy experience, but with a new twist.

Lyndsay was scheduled to speak at a conference in Las Vegas. She wasn’t getting paid by the conference aside from expenses but the attendees were paying (this is important, as you’ll see in a second). She was questioned about her activities and was informed that foreigners were not allowed to speak at a conference where attendees were paying, even if they weren’t receiving an honorarium. As she writes:

I was told, people CANNOT go to the United States to speak at a conference that people pay to attend. The supervisor seemed aghast when I said that I had done it many times before – he likened it to admitting I’ve done these horrible fraudulent activities in the past. He informed me that I was lucky I’d never been caught before, and that the other hundreds and thousands of Canadians who go to the US on a daily basis to speak are also “lucky” they’d never been caught.

Well this is a new twist! In my attempts to cross to speak the issue was always that I was going to receive money that an American could have received, but nothing was said of the attendees paying. This might be why events like Code Camps (which are free for attendees and provide no coverage for speakers) was never an issue for me to attend.

Lyndsay started doing the same things that I did: finding out how this horrible mistake could be made. After all, like the border officer said to her, there are hundreds and thousands of Canadians that go to the US to speak all the time. Could it really be that they were just “lucky” that they didn’t get caught?

She found the same US State Dept document that I did, which contains the following regarding a foreign lecturer or speaker:

No salary or income from a U.S. based company/entity, other than expenses incidental to the visit. If honorarium will be received, activities can last no longer than nine days at any single institution or organization; payment must be offered by an institution or organization described in INA 212(g); honorarium is for services conducted for the benefit of the institution or entity; and visa applicant will not have accepted such payment or expenses from more than five institutions or organizations over the last six months.

The problem is in that one line: payment must be offered by an institution or organization described in INA 212(g). INA stands for the Immigration and Nationality Act and is key legislation as it relates to US citizenship and immigration. When we go to section 212 of the act on the USCIS website, we see there is no 212(g)! in fact, doing a search of the word “organization” just brings up references in relation to terrorist organizations and “institution” references it in a correctional institution context. This leads me to think that the US State Dept. website is out of date or inaccurate.

Trying to navigate through the Canadian-focussed sites on the US government’s web is frustrating and pointless. The consular service site for Canada has no easily found information. A site search for “lecturer” returns no results. And as we’ve already seen, the US Dept of State site is suspect. Luckily, there is information out there that helps lead us in the right direction. We just have to look on the website for the US Embassy in London.

Here we have more detailed information regarding speaking/lecturing. To summarize, it says if you’re speaking in the US and not collecting an honorarium and just having expenses covered then a B-1 is fine. However, if you are collecting an honorarium then there’s one glaring criteria that must be met:

The institution is a nonprofit research organization or a governmental research organization, or an institution of higher education, or a related or affiliated nonprofit entity.

Now we’re getting somewhere! So, assuming that these rules are applied to Canadians and UK citizens alike, it suggests speakers receiving an honorarium can only speak for non-profit, government, or educational organizations. Speaking for any other organization will require a different visa than the B-1 (an H-1 for instance).

Unfortunately, this verbiage doesn’t address the issue of not getting paid to speak at an event where attendees are paying to attend. But its a step in the right direction.

As I mentioned in my previous post, there’s a new email address set up by DHS to handle general inquiries. I’ll be sending off an email to them this week asking for clarification on the rules as well as references to the related acts and legislation. It’s time to answer this speaker question once and for all.

USCIS General Inquiry Mailbox

2010-01-24T07:22:00.001-08:00

Have a question about working in the US, immigrating to the US, or related areas? Well now an answer is an email away!

USCIS Launches Immigration Inquiry Mailbox for Canadians
WASHINGTON— U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced the creation of a general inquiry mailbox for customers in Canada. Currently Canadians cannot access the National Customer Service Center through the 1-800 number to ask about general immigration questions. Canadian customers may now inquire about general immigration information at USCIS.Canada@dhs.gov in addition to obtaining immigration information at www.uscis.gov.

As you’ll see in some upcoming posts, I’m going to test out this new email service to see how much value it really provides for those looking to navigate the confusing landscape of US government websites.

Have AIDS, Can Travel

2010-01-05T05:30:00.001-08:00

Back in the 80’s, AIDS was a new and scary disease. Well, its still scary; but we know much more about it now, have treatments available, and the fear that paralyzed us back then has subsided.

The United States, in response to that fear, implemented a ban on foreigners who were HIV positive from entering the country. On January 4th 2010, that 22 year ban was lifted.

From TimesLive.co.za’s article on the subject, quoting the US State Department:

Additionally, HIV testing will no longer be required in medical examinations for visa purposes. Furthermore, applicants who are HIV-positive will no longer require waiver processing by the department of homeland security.

For Canadians afflicted with HIV, this means a new era of travel to our neighbours to the south.

Thoughts On The Christmas Airline Bombing Attempt

2009-12-29T07:25:00.001-08:00

More New Rules of Flight

There’s no point in me trying to give a rundown of what the “new rules” of flight are in the wake of the recent attempted airline bombing. I say there’s no point because the rules change day to day, and will continue to be in flux. Its reactionary, to be sure. At first we heard of restrictions on what could be brought on as carry-on luggage, then there was an all out ban of carry-on luggage except for certain items. Westjet announced changes to their flights, then removed them when the US announced they weren’t required.

All of this within the span of four days.

So we’re going to see more announcements with changes to policies over the next few days. I am so thankful that I’m not flying this holiday, but also feel horribly for the thousands that are and are being affected by all this.

Conspiracy Theories

He acted alone, terrorists took credit for it, the Yemin connection, the supposed alerts his father gave authorities, etc. etc.

Many experts and non-experts will be weighing in on what happened behind the scenes and what transpired to cause this event. Mattew Good has some interesting posts on his blog with various information and thoughts (the guy isn’t just a pretty face with a guitar y’know).

The reality is, like anything (lately at least it seems) to do with the US government, the war on terror, and heightened sensibilities, we’re not going to get the true details; just filtered information from various sources that may corroborate or contradict each other.

My Own Thoughts

So what does this latest incident tell us about the state of the world, our perceived security, and the potential for new threats (and I may sound like I’m throwing my hat in the ring with the other non-experts I mentioned above)?

- While Canadian airports are beefing up security, there’s no talk of what has been done to increase security in Europe which is where this flight originated (or maybe there has been and I haven’t heard/read it, but its not making the news here). So once again Canadians have to suffer thanks to another’s faulty security.

- Threats are still out there, and the more disconcerting part of this incident is that there was no major target. No offense to the people of Detroit, but if you’re going to make a statement that’s probably way low on your list of destinations. However, whether its a guy acting alone or part of a group, the fact that the target wasn’t necessarily any major city or landmark but simply a US-bound aircraft does raise some concerns.

- I wonder if we’re becoming desensitized to the idea of localized attacks? When 9/11 happened, there was no doubt the shock and horror that people felt, both in and out of the US. But this latest attack, while newsworthy, hasn’t seemed to garner the same sort of emotions. This was, regardless of the backstory, an attempted murder of hundreds of people on a flight…one that was carried out not against individuals but against a country. And yet the inconveniences of heightened security (albeit reactionary) seem to trump the potential loss of life that could have resulted. To me, this is scary. In my mind we need to value the fact that we don’t have the issues other countries have: bombings, genocide, violent clashes in streets. When we get desensitized to local violence we’re taking a step backwards, a very dangerous step.

A True Thickening Of The Border

2009-12-11T15:00:00.001-08:00

In my last post about Peter Watt’s border issues, I mentioned that it was almost assuredly CBP officers that conducting the search of his vehicle. Now, Peter was coming back into Canada from the US though, so why would he have encountered US border officers?

Well it turns out that the US border doesn’t end with the narrow line between it and Canada/Mexico. In fact, there is a 100 mile “buffer zone” that wraps around the internal edge of the country. Within this zone, checkpoints have been erected that act as a second border.

From the ACLU’s website. Click the image to view their interactive map.

For some Americans, this is a huge violation of the US Constitution and the 4th Amendment. There are also concerns raised that the checkpoints are not entirely focussed on securing the borders, especially when they are placed on east/west roads within the buffer and not north/south.

However, for Canadians, this is an important piece of information to know: you may be stopped by CBP while travelling within the US interior or returning to Canada but before you actually hit the border. And if you are stopped at a checkpoint, remember that the same rules apply there as they do when entering the USA.

For more information on this topic visit:

ACLU Fact Sheet on US “Constitution Free Zone”

ACLU Are You Living in a Constitution Free Zone?

The Peter Watts Incident

2009-12-11T14:47:00.001-08:00

Following on the heels of the Amy Goodman incident comes a story about Canadian sci-fi writer Peter Watts and his experience trying to get back into Canada.

Peter had travelled to the US to help a friend move to Nebraska. He tried to return to Canada at Port Huron, Michigan. He was stopped by CBP officers who wanted to search his rental vehicle. Peter blogged about his experience but in a nutshell:

- Was stopped by US CBP officers who wanted to check his vehicle.

- Peter got out of his car and asked what was going on.

- CBP guards told him to get back into his vehicle.

- Some crazy stuff went down including Peter allegedly getting “shit kicked”, pepper sprayed, handcuffed, spending a night in jail, arraigned and charged with assaulting a federal officer, and finally dumped back into Canada minus his jacket in a cold winter storm.

A handful of sites and news agencies have picked up the story, including BoingBoing, Locus Online, and even the National Post.

Now before we get all “Oooo, how horrible!”, there’s a few things that need to be pointed out and clarified to his story:

First off, yes it was indeed US CBP officers that most likely performed the search of his vehicle. You may be wondering why US border guards would be searching a vehicle going back into Canada. Well, my next blog post will explain that, but for now trust me: they’re entitled to.

Secondly, while I never want to see anyone treated this way I have to question his initial actions. Regardless of your personal thoughts and feelings towards officers of the CBP and DHS, they have authority when it comes to border and immigration issues. Part of that authority means that they can search a Canadian’s car without much cause, if any.

Here we have another scenario of a Canadian thinking that they automatically get the equivalent rights of an American citizen (although I know Americans would argue they don’t have many rights given a similar situation either). Stepping out of your vehicle in a foreign country where foreign officers are wanting to perform a search is just stupid. Demanding to know why they can search your vehicle: borderline Darwin award winner.

We (Canadians) are not American. Their constitution applies to them, not us. Their rights and freedoms as American citizens apply to them, not us. Do we have to like that we’re considered aliens, the same as Mexicans are? Do we have to like that the friendlier border between our countries has been replaced with a harsher one? No and no…but we have to respect the border for what it is: a government established boundary that we are given privilege to cross, not a right to.

If you don’t like the rules, don’t cross the border. If you do cross the border, make sure you understand the rules and play by them. If you do, you can avoid what happened to Peter.

The Amy Goodman Incident

2009-12-02T22:10:00.001-08:00

Amy Goodman…never heard of her. Apparently she’s an “influential US journalist and host of the Democracy Now radio show”, according to a story from thestar.com.

She’s been in the news as of late though. Here’s the Coles-Notes version:

Amy was scheduled to speak in Vancouver in part to help plug her new book, and particularly about Tommy Douglas and health care. When she got to the border though she was faced with Canadian Border Services agents who were quite interested in what she would be talking about. They asked her whether she would be talking about the Olympics. Amy states:

"I thought the guard meant (U.S. President Barack) Obama going to Copenhagen to talk about the Games in Chicago. I was embarrassed because I didn't realize he meant the Games in Vancouver."

She was detained at the border for 90 minutes, was asked to produce notes on her speech and had her computers searched. She was only given temporary access to Canada: 48 hours.

Apparently this has thrown “Americans in a tizzy” according to the Globe and Mail. Keith Oberman of MSNBC commented about the incident on his daily Countdown show and Lucy Dalglish of Washington based “Reporters’ Committee for Freedom of the Press” was stunned. She was quoted by the Globe and Mail as saying about journalists being harassed:

“You hear about American border officials doing things like this all the time, but not Canada.It's absolutely ridiculous.”

The Canadian Border Services Agency is taking the expected stance of not commenting on specific cases.

Personally, I’m torn on this story.

The irony of this of course is that the American media hasn’t run any stories about the numerous Canadians who faced similar or worse experiences crossing into the US. And I do have to question the quality of a journalist that doesn’t understand major world events happening on their own continent (really Amy, you had *no* idea the Winter Olympics were in Vancouver this winter? Really?!).

Was the Canadian Border Services agents out of line to question her? Not at all. Were they out of line to give her only a 48 hour pass into Canada? Not at all. Americans need to realize that there’s a hardening of the border on both sides. We share a continent, but we are separate countries and while we may long for the pre-9/11 days where our border was more a legality than anything, those days my friends are gone.

The cries of outrage coming from the American media are misplaced. Amy wasn’t coming up to Canada in a journalist role; she was coming to speak but also to plug her new book…this was a marketing event, not someone covering a news story.

With all that said though, the words of Ghandi echo here:

“You must be the change you wish to see in the world.”

While we need to be diligent in ensuring criminals and those that would do harm to our country are kept out, we must ensure that Canada is still a country that values free speech and the opinions and thoughts of others…even if those “others” are from a different country.

There needs to be more transparency within the CBSA. What was the reasoning for only granting a 48 hour pass to someone who (I’m assuming) has no criminal record or any other reason to be outright denied entry into the country? Not commenting on specific cases is a cop-out and there needs to be checks and balances in place so that the public can evaluate the abilities of our border agents.

So while I understand that maybe the border guards were a bit zealous in their questioning and that we’ll never really know why they were so focussed on the 2010 Olympics questions, there’s another part of me that’s irritated as the American response of outrage. She wasn’t banned from Canada, she wasn’t kept from seeing her sick child being cared for in a different country…she was simply questioned and given a short term pass into a foreign country where she delivered her speech as planned. Sorry, but that’s hardly worth all the press that this story has garnered.

Welcome to Ottawa Mr. Jacobson

2009-10-03T18:57:00.001-07:00

The United States has sent a new ambassador to Canada. David Jacobson, originally from Chicago, will take up the reigns from outgoing ambassador David Wilkins.

Jacobson hails from Chicago, is married, and has two children (one that attends school in Montreal).

While he’s coming into one of the most US-friendly countries in the world, he’s also coming in at a time where Canada/US tensions are at an all time high, and I think he’s going to find representing our biggest trading partner a challenge.

He’s already outlined what the priorities are in his mind: trade, energy, the environment, and border security/foreign policy. All of these are huge in their own right, and all very tightly intertwined.

Trade is a multi-faceted issue encompassing American protectionism and effects of increased border security. Jacobson needs to be ready to hear strong, passionate views from Canadians and business groups on this topic.

Energy and the environment are also massive topics. On one hand the US is highly dependent on Canada to provide energy resources to them. On another, legislation is being considered in the US that will place environmental restrictions on how Canadian energy exports are collected and refined.

And of course there’s the foreign policy aspect, of which he’ll find challenging as long as elected officials in America keep making comments that rub Canada the wrong way.

David Jacobson has said that he’s looking forward to travelling through Canada, talking to people about how to strengthen the relationship between the US and Canada. I think he’s going to hear a lot more than his predecessor did.

America Appoints New Border Czar

2009-10-03T11:13:00.001-07:00

Meet Alan Bersin, the new Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection. Mr. Bersin comes into the position with an impressive resume:

In the 90’s he was a federal prosecutor focussing on illegal immigrants at the California/Mexico border.
He moved into the educational realm, first being the superintendent of San Diego before being appointed the Secretary of Education for California.
More recently he’s been working within DHS on border affairs issues.

And now, he’s the “border czar” – the man overseeing the entire CBP organization.

So what does this mean for the US/Canada border? Potentially not a whole lot. Bersin has been involved in southern US border issues for years and provides more insight into how to handle the southern border issues. Coming from a southern border state, like his boss Janet Napolitano* does, shows that America is serious about dealing with the issues…or at least appeasing the other southern border states that they’re using like-minded people in these government positions. It’s clear his role is to strengthen the border with Mexico.

Which means that he’ll likely ignore the northern border. With the southern border continuing to be such a huge focus, the northern border may continue to see more stringent policies put in place for no reason other than both borders need to be treated as equals.

If there is need to deal with the northern border, it will be interesting to see if he learns the hard lessons that Napolitano has in her short tenure when dealing with northern states and Canada.

The Good Samaritan – Canada’s Role in 9/11

2009-09-11T08:27:00.001-07:00

Today marks the anniversary of 9/11, the horrendous attack on American soil that brought down the World Trade Center, killed thousands, changed millions, and altered our world view.

I was talking on Twitter with a buddy who was commenting that Bing.com in the states were showing something 9/11 related. In Canada, Bing.com has some remote lake in New Zealand and I wondered why they didn’t choose to focus on a key event of that day which occurred in Canada.

*Image from a collection of images found here.

Gander, Newfoundland, is a community of just under 10,000 people. On 9/11, as the sky was cleared of all air travel, 38 planes carrying 6,500 people were diverted to Gander. Within a few short hours, the population of the town almost doubled.

Once word broke of the arrivals, the people of this small town sprung into action. Teri A. McIntyre, in a review of The Day The World Came to Town, wrote:

But when Gander became the recipient of unexpected quests on that most tragic day, its residents immediately rallied with a swiftness and friendliness that even movies and books cannot accurately replicate. As DeFede consistently demonstrates, the town was a place where no call for assistance went unheard, and no person struggled alone.

Schools and halls quickly became emergency shelters. Residents invited people into their homes for showers, beds and meals. People stripped their houses bare of sheets and towels, and offered the use of their vehicles. Pharmacists filled prescriptions from all over the word at no cost. Local businesses emptied their shelves of food, clothing, toys and toiletries. One local business, Canadian Tire, was given instructions by its head office to provide whatever was required at no expense.

On a day when so many were dealing with mixed emotions of what had happened, what the state of loved ones were, whether more attacks would occur, and just trying to deal with this horrible reality, a community ensured that their basic needs of shelter, food, safety, and care were taken care of; an outpouring of love and compassion to people they had never met.

Since 9/11 we’ve seen reactionary security measures put in place, a war fought and continuing to be fought, a hardening of the North American borders, and an increased sense of distrust and suspicion.

And yet Gander provided us with an alternate story from that day: one of humans reaching out to one another without regard of country of origin. While we allow borders to define us, Gander showed that the tenets of humanity are universal; that when we see others in a place of need we have the ability to reach out and make a difference. They acted as true citizens of the world and their actions should be an example for us all.

The Future Is Now

2009-09-10T14:37:00.001-07:00

Back in May I blogged about ‘A Glimpse of the Future’ where I discussed the effect WHTI would have on Canada/US relations, travel, and commerce. I ended that post with this:

And through all this, those that depend on business from their neighbours over the border, in both countries, are the ones suffering.

As one person said when calling in to the radio station:

"We used to go down every week and a half, but if this keeps up, we'll be lucky if we go down every four to six weeks."

This is not a fad, this is not temporary. This is a glimpse of the future of Canada/US relations.

A recent article posted on USA Today’s website entitled “Border traffic plunges under passport policy” provides some validity to the repercussions strengthening the border has spawned.

First, a stat showing that the number of privately owned vehicles entering the US border in June and July (from north and south combined) has dropped by approximately 2 million from last year; almost 4 million from 2005.

A Buffalo NY border crossing region saw a 13% decline in privately owned vehicles coming into the US.

An amusement park 10 minutes from the Canadian border has seen 1/3 fewer Canadian families coming down for the “Canadian Wednesdays” promotion they run.

A US based charter bus company has cut the number of trips it makes to an Ontario based casino in half because people there would rather spend their money gambling locally than get a passport to go out of country.

And yet, with these and other examples of reduced cross-border commerce, CBP is still standing firm that the passport requirements and other WHTI related policies have nothing to do with the decline in border traffic. From the article:

CBP officials say the change has made border crossings safer and more efficient and isn't to blame for declining numbers. Fewer people have been coming to the USA via land borders since 9/11, says Colleen Manaher, initiative director.

Compliance has been high; 95% of affected travelers arrive at the borders with proper documents, she says. "You have to look at this in totality," she says. "There is the recession, exchange rates, gas prices. There's border violence, there's weather."

So, I’ll give Colleen the benefit of the doubt that she’s talking about north *and* south borders. But let’s focus on Canada here, which btw was the only country that had changes initiated. Mexican citizens already had document requirements for entering the US.

Canada doesn’t have border violence, not anywhere remotely close to the US/Mexico issues. Weather? Did she really say the weather was a factor? I’m not sure what types of extreme weather are affecting Canadians from crossing into the US.

The recession had the uncanny timing of showing up as WHTI was going into effect, but I’ll grant that it must be factored into people not going out and doing shopping across the border as much.

Exchange rates have not been terrible over the last year. According to xe.com, today the Canadian dollar is worth .93 US. Gas prices high? I think that’s an easy scapegoat.

No, the key reason that Canadians and Americans are sticking to their own side of the border rests with the document requirements that the US has enforced on itself and its neighbours. The cost in dollars and time all to appease a government already seen as overly paranoid just doesn’t seem worth it. DoHS can deny that all they want, but when you talk to the people being directly affected by it, you can tell who’s a more valid source.

People like Mike McGuire, the spokesman for that amusement park I mentioned above. He states:

“We used to cater a few picnics for Canadian businesses. A couple have told us they can't do it because they can't force their workers to get passports.

Where it really hurts is the impulse buy. Mom and Dad are sitting at home on a Saturday afternoon and say, 'Hey, let's go to Fantasy Island. Wait, we can't because we don't have … passports.' "

Funny that Mike didn’t suggest the reason they don’t come down as gas prices, the exchange rate, or the weather.

US Bodychecks Canadian Hockey Charters

2009-09-07T22:12:00.001-07:00

This could end badly. Very, very badly. I’m talking riots in the streets. Infuriating Americans with the threat of Obamacare wasn’t enough…Obama had to incite anger in the hearts of Canadians as well, and he did it targeting one of our most beloved national treasures: hockey!

First, a bit of a history lesson: There are rules about where flights from Canada can go when entering the US. Basically, they can visit a single US location before returning to Canada. However, 8 years ago, Canada and the US came to an agreement allowing sports teams and entertainers who chartered planes to US destinations to not be bound by the rule. This makes sense, since if the Ottawa Senators are playing a 5 game road trip in 5 US cities, it would be a little silly to have them have to fly back to Canada after each game.

So let’s bring it back to mid August when the US Department of Transportation changed the rules, forbidding charter flights from doing multiple US hops. Why?

Well the US Air Line Pilots Association did a little snooping and found that Canadian teams were breaking some rules of the agreement. How? Well let’s say the Senator’s team owner happened to be in Pittsburgh when Ottawa showed up for the game (this isn’t a real example, just an illustration). The Sens next game was in Phoenix, so the team owner boards the charter plane and flies with the team. Or let’s say an injured player does the same sort of thing: meets up with the team in the US and then hops on the charter to their next stop.

The charters are meant for people originating from Canada, but because they’re picking up passengers within the US (regardless of their association to the team, whether an owner or employee) they’re providing travel that would otherwise be going to a US-based carrier…who employs US Air Line Pilots Association members.

Now let’s put this in perspective. There are SIX (6) NHL teams in Canada, so the number of people violating this rule is insanely small. The people who are part of these trips are associated with the team…these charters are not doing passenger travel on the side. Yet this was enough for the US DoT to not levy fines or warnings, but to kill the agreement altogether.

And how did Canada respond? From the National Post article:

In a furious exchange with the Obama administration over the mid-August ruling, Canada has launched its own investigation and will soon close its skies to U.S. sports team charters in retaliation, warns Transport Minister John Baird.

Mr. Baird said the dispute "shows the power of anti-free-trade Democrats in the Congress" and cautioned his government will respond in kind.

"We've already directed the Canadian Transportation Agency to launch a formal inquiry and the next step will be a direction to the CTA to immediately prohibit charter flights by U.S. carriers under season-long contracts with professional sports teams with multiple stops in Canada," he said in an interview.

This is somewhat surprising considering that the Conservative party has been very vocal that counter-protectionism is not in the best interest of Canada in the long run. But now, with a direct attack on our national game, it seems that sentiment is starting to crack a bit…especially with comments like “anti-free-trade Democrats in the Congress”.

The reality is that this isn’t about hockey. It’s about an attack on a Canadian-based business supplying chartered flights for sports and entertainers, and it should be pointed out that not all are Canadian-based (Air Canada, who runs the charters, count the Boston Bruins and Milwaukee Bucks as current customers; they lost a contract with the Anaheim Ducks due to the US DoT decision). While I make light of the hockey angle, make no mistake: this is about free trade and protectionism.

United States – 5 minutes and a game misconduct for sidestepping your free trade agreement responsibilities, pandering to a special interest group instead of consulting with anyone on this side of the border, and foregoing diplomatic common sense to resolve this issue.

UPDATE
I found this article on the Globe and Mail website. It adds some interesting info to this story:

- Air Canada was servicing two American-based teams (Boston Bruins and Milwaukee Bucks) when they took on the extra passengers for cross-city flights. Canadian company still at fault, but not the Canadian teams.

- There is already a similar ban in place in Canada as a response to the US action. The story talks about an airline in Miami and one in Dallas that were told to cancel flights to Canada.

The Ripple Effects of Protectionism – Microsoft as a Case Study

2009-09-07T21:12:00.001-07:00

I came across an interested article today, one originally published in 2007 which makes it even more interesting as its commentary comes before the global recession reached its destructive climax.

The article tells the story of Parminder Singh, a man who immigrated to Canada with his family when he was only 6 years old. It talks about the issues he had getting into the US job market due to his birthplace of New Delhi, and how he overcame US immigration issues to emerge as a key Microsoft employee.

But underlying this story, written before Buy-US provisions were introduced, written before Barack Obama was the US president, is a is commentary on protectionism and why countries need to thoughtfully and carefully review their views on immigration.

Microsoft is a classic example of this. In the article Jack Krumholtz, Microsoft’s government affairs director at the time, was quoted saying:

"We currently do 85 per cent of our development work in the U.S., and we'd like to continue doing that. But if we can't hire the developers we need, we're going to have to look to other options to get the work done."

And over the last couple of years, we’ve seen Microsoft do just that. Instead of dealing with US immigration, they opened up the Microsoft Canadian Developer Center in British Columbia. If the US doesn’t want Canadians or others from elsewhere in the world coming to work for a US company on US soil, the company will go to them. Interestingly enough, its Canada’s immigration policies that have made this move so attractive for Microsoft, allowing them to source and attain international talent.

This past year Microsoft Tech Ed, one of their two premiere conferences, was held in Los Angeles. At the same time, Microsoft Tech Ed was also occurring in India. Which one did Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer choose to deliver the keynote to? The India event.

Companies do not require to be operating in their home country to be successful, and hindering their ability to hire talented prospects due to protectionist policy only hurts the country in question.

What also seems to be missed in all of this is the spin-off benefits of bringing in talented workers from other countries. While they live and work in a foreign country they also contribute to the local economy through commerce as well as the local governments through taxation.

What about the concern that immigrants will take jobs that should be considered to local citizens first? This, I believe, serves as a warning for North America: competition is not solely within your borders. If there is talent locally, then there should be no issue: it is still far cheaper to hire local talent then having to source international prospects.

But if there’s *not* talent pool to draw on, where does that leave a company like Microsoft? How can a company continue to thrive and be profitable if its hindered by a lacklustre local workforce? The answer is that it shouldn’t. For us that make up the workforce, we need to ensure that we’re striving to be better not just within our own circles of peers and competitors, but also with our global competitors.

As the saying goes, don’t hate the player…hate the game. But if there is a better player out there, wouldn’t you rather have them playing for your team (read: country)?

DHS: All Your Electronics Belong To Us*

2009-09-01T12:39:00.001-07:00

There’s been a lot of buzz lately about the DHS’s new directives on performing searches of electronic media. From the official press release:

The new directives address the circumstances under which U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) can conduct border searches of electronic media—consistent with the Department’s Constitutional authority to search other sensitive non-electronic materials, such as briefcases, backpacks and notebooks, at U.S. borders.

So what does “electronic media” refer to? Well, from the CBP Directive document:

Includes any devices that may contain information, such as computers, disks, drives, tapes, mobile phones and other communication devices, cameras, music and other media players, and any other electronic or digital devices.

That’s right, its basically anything that can electronically store information. In addition to the searches, CBP has the authority to transmit your data if its in a form that they don’t understand to someone that can “translate” it for them:

Officers may sometimes have technical difficulties in conducting the search of electronic devices such that technical assistance is needed to continue the border search. Also, in some
cases Offtcers may encounter information in electronic devices that requires technical
assistance to determine the meaning of such information, such as, for example, information that is in a foreign language and / or encrypted (including information that is password protected or otherwise not readily reviewable). In such situations, Officers may transmit electronic devices or copies of information contained therein to seek technical assistance from other federal agencies. Officers may seek such assistance with or without individualized suspicion.

There are huge privacy concerns that are raised from this paragraph. For one, the number of electronic devices out there suggest that more than a few officers will be met with a device they have no idea how to use or access data from. Will the default reaction, if there’s suspicion (or not, since there doesn’t have to be), be to confiscate the device for further vetting?

Another concern should be on the data itself. Encrypted or not, your data can be copied and transmitted to “other federal agencies” to be vetted. You have no control over who or how many people will see your data.

Speaking of seizing and sharing data, just to make it clear:

5.4.1.1 Retention with Probable Cause.
Officers may seize and retain an electronic
device, or copies of information from the device, when, based on a review of the electronic device encountered or on other facts and circumstances, they determine there is probable cause to believe that the device, or copy of the contents thereof,
contains evidence of or is the fruit of a crime that CBP is authorized to enforce.

5.4.1.3 Sharing Generally.
Nothing in this Directive limits the authority of CBP to share copies of information contained in electronic devices (or portions thereof), which are
retained in accordance with this Directive, with federal, state, local, and foreign law enforcement agencies to the extent consistent with applicable law and policy.

In Canada our file sharing/downloading laws are nowhere near as stringent as in the US. So what does this mean for a Canadian with a copy of Battlestar Galactica they pulled down from a torrent site who gets searched at the border? Could they be turned over to authorities for copyright infringement? Maybe you’re reading this thinking that its a farfetched scenario, but consider the last line in the paragraph below from the DHS press release:

Searches of electronic media, permitted by law and carried out at borders and ports of entry, are vital to detecting information that poses serious harm to the United States, including terrorist plans, or constitutes criminal activity—such as possession of child pornography and trademark or copyright infringement.

That’s right, “trademark or copyright infringement” is listed as a criminal activity and next to terrorism. Of course, copyright infringement *is* illegal and I’m not condoning it. However, I question whether CBP officers are going to have enough training to be able to identify material that is illegal and that which is legal. I hope we never have to hear about a person crossing the border being asked to produce receipts for all the iTunes purchases they filled their iPod with, or having their laptop confiscated for containing ripped movies that are actually legal digital copies made available when purchasing DVD’s.

Now, to keep this in some perspective, only 1000 laptop searches were conducted out of 221 million travellers…a miniscule percentage. Still, the door has been opened for CBP officers to perform invasive searches for no reason whatsoever and on a wider variety of devices. Travellers need to be aware of the possibilities, even remote ones, that their data could be seized when travelling into the US. So what can you do?

Store Your Data In The Cloud
If you want to ensure no data is collected, and to limit the potential for confused looks as officers try to figure out what your scientific report is really about, store your data on a server and not on your computers and devices. Many airlines are now offering wi-fi internet access in their planes, which means that once you’re through security and onboard you can freely download your files and work on the flight. This also removes any concern about legal media files that could be incorrectly identified as copyright infringement.

Keep Devices To A Minimum
I don’t know how these searches will be carried out…if only one piece of electronics will be searched or if someone flagged will have all devices searched. Assuming the latter, keep everything to a minimum. Laptop, cell phone, mp3 player…camera if you have to. Don’t bring multiple laptops, don’t bring a bunch of USB jump drives or external drives for that matter. The fewer devices, the fewer searches can be performed (speeding you through to your plane) and fewer questions will be asked.

Bring Only Data You’re Comfortable Losing
If you do need to bring data on your devices, ensure that its data your comfortable losing or having people view. If you have any sensitive data, I redirect you to the first suggestion of utilizing a file server. Any data on your devices should be free of passwords and organized in a way that’s easily discoverable. Help the CBP officers conduct their search.

Have a Backup Plan
Ensure you have some backup plan for a worst case scenario. For instance, if you’re doing a speaking engagement but your laptop gets confiscated at the border due to a search, ensure that organizers know that you might need a filler laptop to run your presentation on, and have your presentation available through a file server or another source that doesn’t require you to physically carry it.

It will be interesting to see, as these new directives come online, whether the number of reported instances of device searches increases or not. Either way, travellers should be aware.

*Btw, the “All your electronics belong to us” is a pop-culture reference to a mistranslation in a videogame called Zero Wing.

Time For Canada to Roar

2009-08-10T21:32:00.001-07:00

I have a lot of American friends, and as such I hear a lot of Canadian jokes. Most of them I just laugh off…and seriously, there’s enough American jokes that I throw back as well…its all good natured.

But Americans don’t make jokes about Australians, or the British, or even Mexico like they do with Canada. Why is that? Part of it, I believe, is that Canada isn’t really taken seriously by America. And unfortunately that sentiment isn’t just held in pockets of everyday Americans…it can be found at the highest levels of government.

Take for instance the recent nomination hearing of David Jacobson, the new US ambassador to Canada. Canada, remember, is the largest trading partner with the US, not just in exports but in imports of US products as well. Our countries are intertwined, we share a symbiotic economical relationship. In the grand scheme of the US economy, we matter! Yet for Mr. Jacobson’s nomination hearing only one person showed up to ask questions about his new role out of a potential twenty one.

According to an article from The Star, former US ambassador to Canada Gordon Giffin offered this explanation:

“…David Jacobson is a very solid guy with not a hint of controversy surrounding his nomination. Second, senators are consumed with some rather large issues in finance and environment. And finally, everyone is rushing to get out of town because the summer recess is imminent. Add that up and this is just a formality, really.”

Yet I wonder if things would have been different with any other country…say the ambassador to China, Britain, Germany, or Mexico? Would all 21 have ensured they showed up? Giffin’s logic is a little troubling as well. He suggests that senators are busy with larger issues, but also want to get out of town because of the summer recess…so which is it: are they dealing with big problems, or just trying to get to the cottage faster?

Regardless, this does leave a bad taste in Canadian’s mouths. It has nothing to do with whether this nomination was simply a “formality”. What matters is that the US shows respect for a country that has bent over backwards to be a great neighbour and trading partner.

Of course, many US politicians probably don’t think there is anything really pressing with Canada since even their president downplays Canada’s concerns over protectionist policies:

“I do think it's important to keep this in perspective. This in no way has endangered the billions of dollars of trade taking place between our two countries,”

“I want to assure you your Prime Minister raises this with me every time we see each other. [But] I think it's also important to keep it in perspective, that in fact we have not seen some sweeping steps toward protectionism,”

President Obama

And yet we continue to hear stories about Canadian companies losing money because they’re shut out of bidding for jobs in the US while US companies have no such limitations in bidding on Canadian jobs.

As Canadians we need to continue being vocal, continue raising awareness of these issues with our governments and those across the border. We need to keep pushing for NAFTA reform, not just because its outdated in the types of jobs that are covered by it but to ensure we preserve our natural resources for our future generations.

We’ve already looked at other free trade agreements with other countries, and we should continue to do that. We should not continue to accept our role as a friend to the United States only when it serves their purposes. We are the true north strong and free, we should be proud of our country and our heritage, and we should rail against anyone who attempts to take advantage of us and our people.

Canada needs to stop being do damn polite and start asserting ourselves as the global player we truly are.

What Was The Point of Passports Again?

2009-07-21T06:26:00.001-07:00

The Winnipeg Free Press posted a story today about a Winnipeg' couple’s experience crossing into the US for a weekend trip of golfing and shopping. Unfortunately 54 year old Donald Miller’s name and birthdate was shared by someone who, when entered into the US CBP system, came back as “armed and dangerous”.

CBP officers surrounded the car and drew weapons on the couple, instructing them to get out of the car where they were handcuffed and brought into separate interrogation rooms where Mr. Miller was subjected to what the news story describes as an “embarrassingly intimate search”. He was not told why he was being detained although he asked, and had a gun pointed at him during the search and during an interrogation. Finally he was freed and was told it was mistaken identity.

I’m in agreement with Donald in that there was nothing wrong with how the CBP officers reacted. Just like I would expect for our Canadian guards, if the information given suggests someone in front of them could be armed and dangerous, they need to protect themselves and ensure any threat is vetted and identified.

But wasn’t the WHTI supposed to deal with this? Canadians are now crossing with either a government issued passport or enhanced identification card. Canada has spent millions implementing these programs to ensure our citizens meet the requirements of the US border.

Even more disturbing is the system CBP officers use is an FBI operated database. From the news story:

The National Crime Information Center is a computerized database operated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The database contains information on criminal records, fugitives, missing persons and wanted persons. As well, stolen licence plates are on file, as well as stolen boats and guns.

The information comes from several areas including the FBI, federal, state, local and foreign criminal justice agencies.

The database is open only to federal, state, local law enforcement agencies and other related justice agencies.

So you run a name through an FBI operated database, a name pops up saying armed and dangerous, but…what…the FBI database has no picture of the suspect, no description, nothing that can be cross referenced against the passport photo or *gasp* even just LOOKING at the guy in the car? Instead, a name and birthday match are all that’s required to yank a guy from his car and put him through the ringer while they determine if he’s *the* guy.

Maybe before Canada sunk so much money into getting our people ready for the WHTI standards we should have issued demands on the Americans to get their information systems in order as well.

And I totally echo Don’s comment about nobody offering any apology, regardless of the officers just doing their job.

"Thing is, the Americans don't know how to say 'I'm sorry for the inconvenience.'"

Visa: You Can’t Get Into Canada Without It (for Mexico and Czech Republic Citizens Anyway)

2009-07-15T07:43:00.001-07:00

I’ve had a few days to digest what’s gone on between Canada, Mexico, and the Czech Republic. For those that are out of the loop, here’s the backstory:

Since 2007 Canada has received more than 12,000 Czech and Mexican refugee claimants came to Canada with most of them being illegitimate. For each claimant, it costs around $29,000 because while the paperwork is being done they are cared for and put up somewhere in Canada. That’s almost $350 million dollars that Canadian taxpayers have put forward to care for people escaping other countries, and remember a high percentage are illegitimate.

The reason Czech and Mexico are singled out is because they’re the two countries who have the largest number of refugee claimants coming to Canada. Obviously the cost as well as security issues need to be addressed, and that’s what the Canadian government tried to do this week.

On Monday it was announced that all travellers from Mexico or the Czech Republic need to get a visa to travel to Canada. In one of the biggest WTF decisions I’ve ever seen, the new rules went into effect yesterday (Tuesday). That’s right: announce new visa requirements on Monday, put them into effect the next day…although, bless their hearts, the government did allow a 48 hour grace period.

Of course Mexico and the Czechs aren’t too happy about this. Mexico’s government hasn’t seemed to be too vocal (probably too busy with other stuff like drug cartels and US/Mexico border relations) although their citizens are definitely pissed off. The Czech Republic took a more dramatic stance, petitioning to the EU and making a huge drama-queenish type of display.

Canadians are also upset as well. One story suggested that Mexican tourist dollars bring in $235 million into Canada’s economy every year, and many businesses rely in part on Mexican tourists. Notice I’m not mentioning the Czech’s. In every story I read, I didn’t see one mention or suggestion of how Czech visitors en-masee provide value to Canada’s industries other than keeping our immigration department fully staffed.

So what are some next steps or possible solutions to this first-draft attempt of saving taxpayer dollars and securing our border?

Extend The Grace Period
Even the Americans gave us months of notice that we’d need passports to cross over by land. For Canada to make this announcement on a Monday and have it go into effect the next day, even with a 48 grace period, is unacceptable. We have a good relationship with Mexico and there’s no reason to punish the majority of travellers from there because of a comparatively small group that costs us big money at home.

And don’t forget that Canadian industries that rely on tourism dollars got no advance notice either. So not only are people in Mexico scrambling to get travel visas for upcoming trips, businesses expecting those travellers now need to brace for the hit to their expected income.

The Canadian government needs to extend this timeframe. Do the right thing and give these people at lest 4 – 6 months notice.

Mexico and Czech Republic Could Just Pay Up
Here’s another idea: since its people from other countries trying to leave and seek asylum, how about if we charge those countries for each asylum seeker? Kinda like a cost share: legit travellers can still come in visa free, and for those that feel that their government isn’t doing enough to protect them from imminent harm or persecution, maybe *THEY* can foot the bill while we determine qualification for refugee status.

Of course, that adds a whole level of cost collection, but it puts onus on where the problem is originating from. Canada isn’t looking for refugees, but we believe in helping those that truly need help. If Mexico and the Czech Republic could pony up some cash so we can help THEIR citizens who are trying to escape, that would be appreciated.

Canada’s Immigration System Needs Fixing?
I pose this as a question because I don’t really know if it does or not. You could say that its a bloated bureaucracy that is more of a cost suck than anything, but you could argue that about any arm of government. The important thing is that the people working in our immigration system have access to information, tools, and resources to ensure they can expedite the approval process for anyone seeking entry to Canada through immigration, whether refugee or otherwise. If we’re going to be seeing huge savings by reducing dollars spent towards Mexican and Czech refugees and eliminating that extra burden of paperwork and support, then we should see increased performance in other areas.

It’ll be interesting to see what plays out over the next few weeks.

Happy Ending for Ava, Backlash from “Our Friends”

2009-06-30T23:53:00.001-07:00

My last post talked about the heartbreaking story of Ava Stinson, a baby born 14 weeks premature. Because there was no room at any of Ontario’s prenatal care centers, she was flown to Buffalo, NY, for treatment. Her parents weren’t allowed accross the border to see her because they didn’t have passports. Well great news: CBP has given them permission to cross the border and be with their daughter! Kudos to the authorities for doing the right thing in this situation.

So let’s switch gears to the many articles, commentaries, and blog posts by American authors that have tapped this story as proof that socialized medicine is a failure.

Consider this article by Jim Hoft (check out this re-posting also, as the comments are much more colourful). He talks about the number of cases where Canadians went to the US for similar premature birth needs, and how countries with socialized medicine have wonky infant mortality rates because of whether a premature child is included in the stats or not. Two things really made me laugh in his piece though.

In fact, there were at least 40 mothers or their babies who were airlifted from British Columbia to the United States in 2007 because Canadian hospitals didn’t have room for the preemies in their neonatal units.

So first Jim, some lessons on Canada. Canada’s population is approximately 33.2 million. British Columbia makes up 4.4 million of that. If *only* 40 mothers or babies had to be sent to the US for treatment, that’s pretty damn good. Also, realize that in many cases US cities are closer than the next major Canadian city (keep reading, there’s a map to help illustrate this when it comes up again). Sorry Jim, but throwing small numbers to try and prove your point just doesn’t work.

On to the other part of his article:

As we've seen with these socialized systems, some people will inevitably be denied the care they need to survive. No doubt, with Obamacare Americans will be forced to accept an inferior product with fewer choices.

Wow…”some people will inevitably be denied the care they need to survive.” Are we talking about Canada here, or the millions without adequate health care coverage that live in the USA currently? And accepting inferior care with fewer choices…maybe I’m wrong, but don’t HMO’s tell you which hospitals you can/can’t go to?

Jim isn’t the only one though. Over at Carol’s Closet, Carol was commenting from south Florida on the whole episode. She initially posted this entry, followed by this one. Let’s see what she had to say…

The country who’s health care is soooo much better than ours.

There wasn’t a single available neo-natal bed in the entire province so little Ava was transported to Buffalo, NY. Lets here it for National Health Care aka rationed health care.

First off, I don’t know who keeps telling American’s that our health care is better than the care the receive. I have no doubt that the doctors and hospital staff in the US are of a high calibre, and I don’t necessarily think that our health care system is *better* than in the US. But what our system does provide is health care for everyone. That’s the key difference: we see health care as something every citizen should have access to, a basic right of residing in this country.

Carol tries to jab our system…but I don’t think she gets it. Yes its an issue that there wasn’t a hospital bed available in Ontario. But with *our* system, the authorities were able to consider an out of system, potentially more expensive option in the US for this baby’s care. Our system took care of her, regardless of the fact that it had to happen outside our borders.

Carol references an article by Ed Morissey who asks similar types of questions.

But why wasn’t there a NICU bed for the child in the entire nation of Canada? The government of Canada won’t pay for more. They don’t exist to expand supply to meet demand; their single-payer system exists to ration care as a cost-saving mechanism.

Again, a geography lesson is required here. I highly doubt that there wasn’t a bed available anywhere in Canada. What I do suspect is that it made more sense to send the baby to Buffalo as the next closest hospital. Consider this map:

The “A” is Hamilton, and the red line shows where Buffalo is…a very short distance. We know that there isn’t a bed available in Ontario, so the three red circles represent the next closest Canadian cities. Now, what makes more sense for the health and well being of the child? The closer hospital does!

In closing, my goal of this post isn’t to try and convince anyone about Canada’s health care system being better than the US model. Our system is not perfect, and for all the good of our system we also have some bad. No, my goal here is education. There are so many misconceptions about our health care system and how it operates, and from comments on the referenced blog posts it seems political ideology trumps common sense.

Also, check out my post on Clarifying Public Healthcare for some stats and info Canada’s health care system.

It’s Time to End the “Friends” Rhetoric

2009-06-28T01:38:00.001-07:00

I’m sick of hearing North American politicians use the term “friends” when talking about each other’s country. Friends don’t treat each other the way Canadians have been treated by the US in recent months, specifically around the increased border security and related policies that have cost Canadians and Canada dollars, time, and hassle. And yet Canada and its provinces have responded to these new requirements, issuing driver licenses and other government issue ID that are “enhanced” to meet the NHSI standards. We have done our part and shown that we are willing to play by the rules of our “friend” to the south.

And yet, the US government is so rigid, so monolithic, and so black-and-white that they cannot see past their own policies when common sense and basic humanity should prevail.

I read with outrage the story of Ava Stinson. Ava was born on Thursday, 14 weeks premature. There were no available beds available in any of Ontario’s neonatal intensive-care centres, so she was sent from Hamilton ON to Buffalo NY and a facility there.

In Buffalo Ava lies in her bed alone, fighting for her life. She’s too young to understand the idea of mother or father, but we can all understand the agony parents in this situation would feel and the longing and need to be by their child’s side. But they aren’t. Natalie and Richard, Ava’s parents, didn’t go to Buffalo. Why?

Because they don’t have passports.

Yes, our “American friends” couldn’t understand the special circumstances surrounding this situation…couldn’t take the time to validate Ava’s parents in other ways with other pieces of identification. They weren’t going for a vacation, or working, or possibly something illegal…they just wanted to be by their incredibly sick child.

For shame on the Department of Homeland Security! For shame on those from the CBP who could have tried to make an exception to the passport rules and didn’t!

This is not the action of a friend.

Clarifying Public Healthcare

2009-06-14T19:01:00.001-07:00

Earlier this month Rhonda Hackett wrote a great commentary piece in the Denver Post entitled “Debunking Canadian Health Care Myths”.

Rhonda is a Canadian who has been living in the US for the last 17 years, and wrote the column based on discussions she frequently has with Americans and Canadians alike on whether one system is better than the other. I’m not going to re-hash what she’s written, but I do want to point out a few key items:

- Taxes in Canada are only slightly higher than in the US.

- 31% of every dollar spent on health care in the US goes to non-medical costs (paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc.). Provincial single-pay systems in Canada operate with a 1% overhead.

- 10% of Canada’s GDP is spent on 100% of its population.
17% of USA’s GDP is spent on 85% of its population (and that’s not considering the millions with inadequate coverage). So in Canada everyone gets care and we still spend less overall than America which spends more but doesn’t cover everyone.

As a Canadian who’s lived within this system his whole life, I am in no means saying our system is perfect. But the idea that socialized medicine somehow delivers less quality and is always more expensive is incorrect.

How Can We Identify Threats If We Can’t Identify Our Citizens?

2009-06-14T13:38:00.001-07:00

Sylvie Menard spent a fantastic vacation in Mexico, and was passing through customs in her home city of Montreal. Unfortunately for Sylvie, her name and birth date matched someone who was wanted by police.

Now, we live in a time of information…where authorities have access, for better or for worse, to more information on us than we may be aware. Or maybe we only think they do? Sylvie’s experience suggests that the amount of information available to authorities at the border is slim, or even scarier that its more a lack of common sense and experience.

After being subjected to initial and secondary screening she was handcuffed, read her rights, and brought to a cell. While the police were called to come and verify her identity, a female border officer asked her to disrobe so she could verify whether a pink tattoo was present on her butt…a physical trait mentioned in the wanted woman’s description. There was no tattoo of course and the officer returned again to further investigate to ensure it hadn’t been surgically removed.

So let me get this straight: our border officers jumped to the conclusion that this woman *must* be the one that is wanted because her name and birthdate matched, and then went all CSI to look at whether this tattoo was present. Interesting. What I would have expected instead is for them to find a physical description (which they eventually did) or a picture and compare that to her. Also, Sylvie was carrying her passport, driver’s license, and health card; she had identification that they could have looked up and verified before performing any sort of physical inspection.

I’m not even going to comment on the idiot police officer’s recommendation to just “change her name” to avoid this in the future. How about this: how about our law enforcement agencies get their acts together and implement information systems that allow them to determine a person’s identity quickly and efficiently? How about we have trained staff that can grasp common sense solutions instead of defaulting to outrageous extremes?

When false matches occur authorities do have to investigate them. But this isn’t professional police investigation; this is weekend security guard at the local mall antics that have no place at a Canadian port of entry.

Canada Drawing Their Own Line on American Protectionism

2009-06-06T11:48:00.001-07:00

This morning in Whistler the Federation of Canadian Municipalities passed a resolution that it will only support municipalities that adopt policies stating they will only buy from companies that reside in countries without trade restrictions against goods from Canada.

This story begins in Halton Hills, a community of 58,000 people. Hayward Gordon Ltd., a pipefitting company, moved its operation to Halton Hills a few years back. It recently lost a pipe-fitting contract in Ontario to a Salt Lake City firm. The mayor of Halton Hills learned around that time that, because of the “Buy American” policies in place, Hayward Gordon couldn’t bid on projects in Salt Lake City.

So while US companies are still free to come take work away from Canadian firms IN Canada, we’re not able to have our companies try to source business south of the border. As the mayor put it in a Toronto Sun story:

I am not against free trade, but it has to be fair trade.

Halton Hills fought back in their own way: they passed a resolution that the municipality would only deal with companies whose country of origin allowed Canadian companies opportunities to bid on work as well. It was this act that started a movement, with other Ontario municipalities passing similar resolutions and ultimately to the resolution voted in this morning at the FoCM summit.

But what about NAFTA? Isn’t there already a free trade agreement in place that should be taking care of all this stuff? Unfortunately, as an article from Investors.com points out, NAFTA is too high level:

…much of the money allocated to infrastructure projects such as roads, bridges and the like is being spent at the city and state level where Nafta rules do not override "buy American" provisions or sentiment.

The Washington Post cites examples such as the town of Peru, Ind., which told a Canadian supplier it was rejecting sewage pumps that were made near Toronto. John Hayward, president of Hayward Gordon, the Canadian pump-maker, says many U.S. towns have told him they can no longer buy his products because of stimulus provisions.

Work done on a construction project at Camp Pendleton was literally pulled out of the ground when someone noticed Canadian pipe fittings had been used. The fittings were made by a Toronto-based company that had been doing business in the U.S. for 60 years. The company had supplied plastic pipe to be used in a new health care facility at the Marine Base north of San Diego.

The Canadian government isn’t sitting on its hands during all of this. Stephen Harper is entering discussions with the US to try and get Canada excluded from the “Buy American” provisions, although that will only go so far as there’s nothing that can be done to the protectionist sentiment in America. Still, the resolution passed by the municipalities also includes a 120 day waiting period to see how the US responds before putting it in action.

Some have suggested that this sort of tactic isn’t necessary and will backfire; that we should let the elected leaders sort this out and “convince our customers to remember who their real friends are”. As I’ve stated before, “friends” don’t treat each other this way. This is business, and in business relationships both sides need to be satisfied with the agreement.

We want to do business in the US, and we want US companies to do business in Canada; but the rules of opportunity need to be the same on both sides.

Canada needs to start standing up for itself and not playing the nice guy with friends that seem more like opportunistic bullies.

No Thanks Obama, You Can Keep Your Guantanimo Detainees

2009-06-04T21:08:00.000-07:00

Canada takes a lot of flack for being "soft" on immigration. The US has even used that as a reason for the recent border reinforcements along the US/Canada border. There have been comments made suggesting that Canada lets in people the US would not.

So its with great pride that I read the story of how Canada has denied a request by the Obama administration to take in 17 Chinese Muslims that have been detained at Guantanamo Bay.

The US is in a bit of an odd place. The US courts have ruled that these 17 detainees are being held illegally, and they should be released. But they can't be released into the US...in fact the article I linked to above suggests that anyone detained at Guantanamo will never be allowed on US soil again.

But the US can't release these men to China because their safety can't be guaranteed. Will they be tortured because of their faith, or because they were already suspected of being linked to terrorists, or for some other reason? China has claimed the men won't be tortured but the US obviously doesn't buy it. A little odd that they're not so hypersensitive to torture policies of other countries considering what their own is, but I digress...

This all leads to the US coming to Canada to see if we'll take them in. Are the people of the Obama administration that incredibly brash and idiotic that they would, after all the tough talk about securing the border and concerns of who Canada lets in, approach Canada to take in their own detainees?

Guantanamo is America's mess, not Canada's. I feel for the situation these men are in, but its America's responsibilty to do whatever is best here. Trying to pass it off to Canada is a horrible slap in the face.

Why Would Border Security Be Free?

2009-06-02T22:31:00.001-07:00

Maybe I’m missing something here…

According to a Canadian Press story, a proposed additional rail service offering from Seattle to Vancouver is in danger of being scrapped. The reason? The Canadian Border Services Agency is claiming that they will need $1,500 a day to pay for the extra staff it would require to process the extra travellers. The article points out that this works out to $500k a year.

Amtrak can’t pay it and neither can the Washington Dept. of Transportation that was pushing for the run.

BC politicians are fuming. The BC government spent $4.5 million to upgrade railway infrastructure specifically to accommodate this extra rail line offering. There’s also numbers ranging between $14 million and $30 million in how much money will be pumped into the local economy by adding this secondary rail line. They feel the CBSA should waive the fee altogether in light of the obvious benefit to the BC economy.

I have an idea: why doesn’t BC PAY the fee since *they’re* the ones who will see the biggest profit from this? Even at the lower end of the potential winfall, after the fee is paid you’re still seeing $13.5 MILLION dollars being pumped into the local economy.

I don’t understand why the BC politicians think that they somehow deserve extra border protection for free *just because* it’ll help their economy. Border protection is a service provided by a government agency that is already looking at cutting back their workforce. Why should this agency be forced to find alternatives within their organization to allow more officers to patrol a single transportation line that benefits only one city of a single province?

I don’t get it. On paper, this is a no brainer: pay the fee and get the added border officers. If I’m missing something, someone please explain it to me.

Bill Maher – America is Greedy, Not Good

2009-06-01T09:58:00.001-07:00

Saw this on his show the other night…New Rules segment is funny, but its followed with a great monologue on the culture of greed in America.

Being Wishy-Washy is More Frustrating Than Heavy Handed

2009-05-29T07:54:00.001-07:00

For months we’ve heard of the requirements to cross into the US from Canada. Passports, Nexus, enhanced ID, WHTI…all of these buzzwords floating around. And yet its a safe bet that a large amount of people aren’t going to be ready on Monday with the right documents. Ce la vie.

But now we have a slight turnaround by the acting US customs commissioner Jayson Ahern. From a recent Boston.com article:

US customs officials said they will not strictly enforce new identification requirements at land and sea borders with Canada on June 1 because of business leaders' concerns about the impact on trade and travel.

Customs and Border Protection officers will issue warnings to most people who lack the correct documents and use discretion in detaining people for questioning, said Jayson Ahern, acting customs commissioner.

The United States "will have a flexible enforcement policy on June 1," he told reporters. Eventually, "we'll get to a point where" full compliance will be required, he said.

So all the tough talk about how the US will not waiver on the June 1st deadline apparently was just that: talk?! Because somehow pushing the date back would have been a sign of weakness or unpreparedness, and announcing that warnings will be issued for a non-specific amount of time (and potentially on which CBP officer you get on a given day) is somehow different?

We may not like the rules that the US is setting up, but at least we’re in a better position where we know what the rules are. When the target keeps changing, and when comments like this are made, it does nothing but cause confusion. People reading this article who do not have WHTI approved documents are going to think they can still cross on June 1st. Maybe they will, but probably they won’t.

An Economic Omen on the Eve of WHTI

2009-05-28T15:52:00.001-07:00

WHTI goes into effect this Monday, the initiative meant to add an extra layer of security to the Canada/US border. What many critics of the program see is an initiative that will hurt relations and the lucrative cross border economies that have been established over years of good will.

Unfortunately, new numbers published by CBC today suggest that we don’t need to wait for June 1st to get an idea of what sort of economic impact WHTI will have. The article gives statistics for the first quarter of 2009:

Canadians spent $3.6 billion in the US, down 9.1% from 4th quarter 2008 and down 12.1% from the same period last year.

Americans spent $1.8 billion in Canada, down 7% from the previous quarter; the lowest since 1997!

Same-day car trips to Canada by Americans fell to 2.2 million, down 1.8% from the previous quarter; overnight trips were down 3.4% to 3.1 million.

What we see is that there’s already a decline in cross border travel and spending from both sides…and that’s without the extra document requirements set to go into action on June 1st. Some might suggest that this wouldn’t be an issue if the recession hadn’t hit…but the reality is that the recession did hit, and that the WHTI is just going to add to the negative atmosphere of border economics.

Interestingly, the CBC article mentions another stat: Canadians spent 4.1% more ($3.2 billion) to the previous quarter in countries other than the US.

So let’s recap:

- Canadians are spending less in the US
- Americans are travelling and spending less in Canada
- Canadians are spending more in foreign countries excluding the US

And on June 1st, WHTI goes into affect.

Any bets on what the stats for the second and third quarters of 2009 will look like?

It’s OK, She Was Just Kidding!

2009-05-27T13:27:00.001-07:00

Remember all that rhetoric about how the US shouldn’t go light on one border (Can/US) and heavy on the other (Mex/US)?

Remember how outraged Canadians were over the idea that the US would see Canada’s border with the same scrutiny and fervour as the Mexican border even though Canada has none of the border issues that Mexico does?

Remember the 9/11 terrorist comment that Janet Napolitano made that brought to light the untrue myth that is still apparently living in some halls of Washington (as John McCain confirmed)?

Well let’s forget all that. Janet Napolitano is visiting Canada, and she’s apparently decided to take a different approach to the Canadian border now. At a news conference she was quoted as saying:

We're going to be using a different mix of manpower and technology between the ports of entry, for example, than we would at the southern border.

So, the law is the same but the techniques we use to implement that law will be differentiated because of the differences between Canada and Mexico.

So there’s good and bad in all this. The good is that the US has obviously listened to the rumblings coming from Canada. Whether this is just lip service to make nice while visiting Canada or not, that remains to be seen. But at the very least Ms. Napolitano has acknowledged the concerns, even if it is just in a soundbite. What her comments translate to as far as policy remains to be seen.

And that’s where the bad comes in. For the last year we’ve seen incidents of US CBP officers overstepping bounds when it comes to Canadians crossing over the border, specifically heightened to the perceived loss of American jobs to Canadians. We’ve also seen political heavyweights such as John McCain and Hilary Clinton both make public statements that the Canada/US border should be policed better. It’s obvious that there is a certain sentiment that has been built up towards how America views the Can/US border, and its not a positive one.

It’s great that the Secretary of Homeland Security is now saying that Canada’s border is different from the US/Mexico border, but the real weight of that statement will be determined in how many incidents of Canadians being accused of stealing American jobs or undergoing hassles at the border are reported in the coming year.

Either It’s a Real Border Or It Isn’t

2009-05-26T11:30:00.001-07:00

Janet Napolitano has made it clear that, from the US point of view, the Canada/US border needs to be a “real” border complete with added security and defences. While many may disagree, the fact of the matter is that the US, as a sovereign country, has every right to restrict their borders as they feel is appropriate.

But what the US does *not* have authority to do is request that their officers be given powers on *our* side of this real border.

Two programs, one that has been piloted and looks to be continue and one that while failed in talks the first time may still come up again, are showing that the US is demanding a more defined border while trying to overstep their boundaries. One of those programs is Shiprider.

The shiprider program is a joint venture between the RCMP and USCG (United States Coast Guard) where members of each force ride on the same vessel to patrol waters. So instead of two separate fleets performing the same job, this allows one unified border patrol across the line dividing Canada and the US through water ways.

From an article about the program on the RCMP website:

Upon graduation, each officer was cross-designated as a law enforcement officer for the other country — RCMP members were cross-designated as U.S. officers of the customs and USCG officers were cross-designated as supernumerary constables of the RCMP.

Interesting…so we (Canada) basically gave USCG officers honorary status within the RCMP? This doesn’t sound like a strong, separated border to me. In fact, it sounds like an opportunity for US officers to have an inroad to Canadian waters...and possibly airspace and land as well. According to the Council of Canadians:

CBC radio also reported last year that U.S. Coast Guard ships have been entering Canadian waters in the St. Lawrence to investigate and even question Canadians, in one case simply for snapping photos. But Shiprider appears to go much further than patrolling shared waters.

The RCMP and Coast Guard "are partnering with a number of other agencies, including provincial police, the Canadian Forces, U.S. state police and immigration and border patrol agencies to also develop the capability to pursue criminals on the ground and in the air," claimed Cpl. Luc Bessette of the RCMP.

So while the RCMP may tout the success in arrests and illegal goods discovered, they’re also downplaying the larger issue in all of this: our sovereignty being threatened. If Ms. Napolitano wants a “real” border, so be it. But she can’t bend the rules that suit only US interests and as Canadians we should be outraged that our government has allowed these policies and decisions to go through without public input or response.

Blueberries and Raspberries: Microeconomic Effects of Protectionism

2009-05-24T14:02:00.001-07:00

I went to the grocery store today to pick up some extra fruit and vegetables. Raspberries and blueberries were on sale and I started looking through the 1/2 pints to find the best ones.

But then I stopped and was repulsed by what I saw. It wasn’t the quality of the produce though. It was the label of origin on the containers: California.

How could I support foreign growers from a country who is pushing its citizens to not choose products from my country? Of course the Obama administration isn’t outright saying “Don’t Buy Canadian”, but by saying “Buy American” its really 6 one way, 1/2 a dozen the other.

As Canadians we don’t realize how much of our food supply offered to us originates outside of our borders…or maybe the correct statement is that we don’t really care. We see ourselves supporting Canadian businesses at the higher levels (Sobey’s in this case), while ignoring the growers supplying produce at the lower levels and where they come from.

I’m not saying that Canadians should not purchase imported goods. The global economy relies on both exports and imports to thrive. Saying one should only buy Canadian only is hypocritical when we want other countries to purchase our exports.

But when a government (the US) is outright suggesting that its citizens ignore foreign imports in favour of locally generated goods, it leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of people living in what equates to one of the largest export and import partners of the protectionist country.

Now, I did still purchase the berries…although it killed me to do so. In a few weeks a truck will pull into town that sells fruit grown from British Columbia all summer long and I plan to buy all my fruit there.

Sure it may cost a bit more, but I’d rather pay a bit more and know that I’m supporting a Canadian industry that many other Canadians are comfortable seeing suffer at the hands of an economic bully.

A Glimpse of the Future

2009-05-21T17:15:00.001-07:00

We inch closer and closer to June 1st: the day that Canadians and Americans will require WHTI acceptable documents to cross into the United States.from Canada by land and sea in addition to the already implemented air.

But even now, with our still accepted driver’s license and birth certificate combination allowed, we’re seeing a glimpse of what the future of a “more secure” border have on the two country’s relations.

A BC radio station posted a news article on their website entitled Update: Massive weekend border lineups have many people reconsidering future travel plans. From the write up:

On Friday afternoon, the lineups heading into the States at Peace Arch, the 'Truck Crossing' and Aldergrove stretched for hours. Canadians flying out of Bellingham were forced to leave home hours early, while others just heading down to the states to visit family over the long weekend decided to turn around and make other plans.

Yesterday afternoon the northbound lineups started growing, and by last night, a border wait of five hours was reported at the Huntington crossing. One caller to our newsroom says he's tired of taking the chance, and says from now on, he'll enjoy his weekends up north.

At the same time that the US border is being strengthened, Canada is reportedly cutting back on their border staff, and yet also looking to arm the ones remaining. And through all this, those that depend on business from their neighbours over the border, in both countries, are the ones suffering.

As one person said when calling in to the radio station:

"We used to go down every week and a half, but if this keeps up, we'll be lucky if we go down every four to six weeks."

This is not a fad, this is not temporary. This is a glimpse of the future of Canada/US relations.

Canada’s Border - Providing Guns but Not Training Doesn’t Make Sense

2009-05-16T22:55:00.001-07:00

The Montreal Gazette ran a story on the Conservatives’ plan to arm border guards and the response from the Liberal public safety critic Mark Holland. He’s quoted as saying:

"When you take a look at the fact that there hasn't been any instance that has been documented where a gun would have been helpful to a border agent, it seems that throwing guns into the mix could create some serious problems,"

I think Mr. Holland should maybe talk to the officers working in Manitoba when a man driving a van carrying weapons, ammunition, and fuel ran the border. Or maybe the officers in Ontario who had a similar situation with an American “accidentally” driving into Canada. Our officers deal with real border issues and should have the same level of personal protection as other law enforcement.

But the article raises some real concerns, ones that are more troubling than what Mr. Holland or the members of the Mohawks at Akwesasne, who are against the arming, are saying. No, the bigger concern for me is in the details of how this arming is going to be carried out.

There are 4,800 border guards and it will take until 2016 to outfit them all with 9mm Berettas. There are only 850 guards that have been armed so far(the article doesn’t mention when this program began). At first glance this might seem like too long a time to perform the work needed. I question whether its too short.

The union representing the border guards is mentioned in the article as being critical of the government because they’re only supplying three weeks of training in firearms. Comparatively, RCMP officers receive sixteen weeks. Out of those that have been trained, one in five guards can’t shoot straight according to the union.

There’s also concern about the number of reports filed when weapons are used. Last year it was found that in half the cases where border guards pulled their weapons, reports were incomplete. Considering the findings of a recent CBSA internal review, this is not adding to the public confidence in its operation.

The issue, for me anyway, isn’t whether arming our border guards will make our border safer. It won’t. It will, however, give our border officers who are on the front lines the ability to defend themselves when required; I see nothing wrong with this for law enforcement.

The bigger issue for me is why our border guards seem to be treated as second class law enforcement compared to organizations like the RCMP. If we’re going to commit to arming our officers we have a duty to ensure they receive the proper training in the equipment given to them.

We also need to ensure that procedures and policies are carried out and not just optionally followed as it seems so many in the CBSA are currently doing.

The Conservatives’ plan is a good idea, but we need to see more details in how this will be carried out and what we’re really trying to solve here to ensure that we’re thinking of Canada first and not, as the article suggests, simply pandering to the US to show we’re in line with their current border view.

The Impact of US Border Policy with Canada - Trade

2009-05-16T12:59:00.001-07:00

American’s would do well to consider the economic impact that further stringent border policy will cause, especially in light of a brief published by the Border Policy Research Institute of Western Washington University. The BPRI has been around since 2005 and “examines processes and policies related to the Canada – US border”. This is the first of two posts highlighting information published in the brief and how border policy plays a role.

Canada – The Main Exporter for the US

Many Americans may not realize how Canada ranks as an export partner of the US. Consider the image below (from the brief):

Canada is the primary export partner for 36 of the 48 states shown on the map, and is the secondary partner for all other states except for New Mexico and Louisiana. There are five states that had over 50% of all exports head to Canada in October 2007.

For Americans thinking that Canada is a country that relies heavily on the US, the bi-lateral reliance may come as a surprise. Both country’s economies are tightly linked and are very reliant on each other. In its winter brief and associated with the above diagram, the BPRI states under the heading Policy Implications:

From a viewpoint of economic self-interest, the US – Canadian relationship should be of paramount importance to both countries’ governments and citizenry.

And yet all we’ve heard form the Department of Homeland Security is how the border between Canada and the US needs to have parity with the Mexico/US border. In addition to Canadians being outraged at the obvious social disparity between the two borders, we can now point to the trade disparity as well.

According to the US Census Bureau numbers (last updated May 12, 2009), the US has exported $47 billion YTD to Canada compared to only $29.1 billion YTD to Mexico. Some may point out that Canada also has the second highest imports to the US YTD as well.
However, most of those imports are energy resources. The US Energy Information Administration’s website points out that…

In 2007, Canada exported 2.4 million bbl/d of crude oil and refined products to the US, the single-largest source of US oil imports.

In fact, Canada outpaced Mexico by almost one thousand barrels of oil a day that the US imported in 2007. So while Canada may benefit from being the second largest importer into the US, realize that a significant percentage of those imports are energy resources the US depends on.

The brief goes on to talk about how trade is affected by border security practices, and points out that after 9/11 trade slowed across the border. The biggest impact: US imports from Canada. They go on to state that:

The increased cost of cross-border trade, likely associated with higher costs of security compliance, is thought to be the problem.

So while Canada has continued to be a strong trading partner with the US, Canada has lost export dollars due potentially, according to the brief, to the higher cost of security compliance. Regardless of the fact that we supply key resources to the US, regardless that we have a peaceful border compared to Mexico, and regardless of the export/import relationships Canada has built with the majority of the states, the DHS continues to speak of increased security and scrutiny at the border.

There is a growing movement for Canada to re-assess their participation in NAFTA and the clauses around exporting our natural resources. There are active negotiations with other countries and Canada to open new trade agreements. And there is a growing frustration with what people are seeing at the border.

Canada and the US can have a safe, secure border without hindering bi-lateral trade. Unfortunately, the US seems to see trade as secondary to perceived security.

H-1B Visa Tougher to Get

2009-05-10T21:22:00.001-07:00

An article by the Economic Times reports that the US is implementing stricter screening measures for Indian professionals to get an H-1B visa.

The issue it seems stems from Indian companies that are commoditizing the H-1B visa process. So a professional in India wants to come work in the US. A company in India charges them a fee, and they in turn get the professional an H-1B visa and work in the US.

Remember that working in the US is not a trivial process, regardless of simple structures such as TN status under NAFTA. At the heart of foreigners performing work is the question “Why can’t a US citizen fill this role?”. So the concern is not that Indians are coming over and working. It’s whether fraud occurs in trying to fill positions in the US using questionable measures in India. Or at least that’s what I gleam from this article.

But there’s a bigger flag being waved here. Remember that when it comes to the border, Janet Napolitano has already said that she wants parity between the US/Mexico and US/Canada borders. Since they’ve already shown that they want to have identical measures and practices at both, expect that the extra scrutiny for H-1B visas will be extended to all countries and not just India.

Canada/US Required Documentation for Border Crossing

2009-05-09T00:00:00.001-07:00

I had an American friend of mine recently ask what the required documents were for crossing into Canada. With the WHTI going live June 1st, I thought I’d give a quick rundown on the requirements going both ways.

Note that this information is as current as the date of this post. You should always check the current rules and regulations for your home and destination country before crossing (CBP for US, CBSA for Canada).

Canada to the US

For a while now you’ve always needed a passport to travel from Canada to the US by air, regardless of your citizenship. When you cross by land a driver’s license and a birth certificate has sufficed for both country’s citizens.

But on June 1st of this year the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) goes into effect. From the US Dept of State website, WHTI is…

…a result of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA), requiring all travelers to present a passport or other document that denotes identity and citizenship when entering the United States.

The goal of WHTI is to strengthen U.S. border security while facilitating entry for U.S. citizens and legitimate foreign visitors by providing standardized documentation that enables the Department of Homeland Security to quickly and reliably identify a traveler.

The biggest impact of the WHTI is that anyone crossing into the US from Canada, regardless of citizenship, must present a WHTI compliant document. For Canadians, this means a passport.
Americans will also need to present a passport, passport card, or another WHTI compliant document (i.e. NEXUS, SENTRI, FAST) to re-enter their country.

You may see references to Enhanced Driver’s Licenses as being approved documents. Realize that this doesn’t mean *any* driver’s license will do. The issuing province, territory, or state must ensure their license is WHTI compliant (hence the Enhanced descriptor), and my guess is there will be very limited adoption and availability for June 1st.

US to Canada

WHTI is a US initiative only, and Canada’s requirements are not changing to correlate with the American policies. As such, the minimum ID required to cross into Canada is proof of citizenship (birth certificate) and photo identification (driver’s license).

However, since Americans will need to get some form of WHTI compliant document to cross back into the US from Canada, it might be wise for Americans to start their passport application process sooner than later.

For more information on requirements for entering Canada, visit the CBSA page on Admissibility and Required Identification.

Reminders

Note that the information in this post covers a very basic entry scenario: an adult crossing between the US and Canada by land.

I don’t do much sea travel, so I’m not sure if there aren’t slight variations or different rules altogether for entering the US/Canada by boat.

There are also slightly different rules for children and those under the age of 16. Again, not versed in what those are (no need to know them), so if it applies to you make sure to research those specifically.

Finally, this post doesn’t cover visa requirements to perform work in your destination country. Both Canada and the US have rules about foreigners performing work. Check with the proper authorities to ensure you know whether you need a visa beforehand, what documentation you need to provide, etc. before you attempt to cross.

Hope this information is useful!

Drawing Lines in the Sand…Stupid, Ignorant Lines

2009-05-07T09:48:00.001-07:00

Canada Border Services Agency is already in hot water for a scathing internal report suggesting that officers are allowing people into Canada with serious criminal pasts. Now a new story has surfaced showing an absurd extreme: CBSA officers acting as life councillors.

According to a story in the United Press International website, two Canadians were crossing back into Canada with a US citizen, Rose Kelley. Rose is on welfare. Why do I point that out? Because she was denied because she was on welfare. According to her account the border guard made these comments:

“A person on welfare shouldn’t be going on vacation.”

“You really should not come back to the border until your life drastically changes.”

When asked about the incident a CBSA spokesperson simply stated that visitors to Canada must show they can financially support themselves while in Canada.

The Citizenship and Immigration Canada website states:

To visit Canada, you must…have enough money for your stay. The amount of money you will need can vary with the circumstances of the visit, how long you will stay and whether you will stay in a hotel or with friends or relatives. For more information, ask the Canadian visa office in your country or region.

It also mentions further down the page…

You can also be inadmissible for security, health or financial reasons.

If Rose was crossing the border by herself, I could see how she would fall under these rules. But she was travelling with two Canadians who, presumably, she would be staying with.

There are always two sides of any story, and there are gaps that we don’t know about:

- Who are these two Canadians and what is their current status in Canada?

- Is there anything in Rose or her Canadian friend’s backgrounds that would have made the CBSA officers more suspicious?

Without knowing those answers, and just looking at the reported statements, the CBSA officer was out of line with his comments.

Border officers should only speak in regards to why someone isn’t being admissible, not to voice personal opinion of a social or economic class of people. Someone in that position saying that “A person on welfare shouldn’t go on vacation.” is just abusing the power that they’ve been given and as a Canadian I’m ashamed that a foreigner was subject to this type of commentary at our border.

Our CBSA officials have a tough job protecting our border but that doesn’t grant them liberties in the use of their authority.

Security and Immigration – Both Need Equal Border Representation

2009-05-05T06:42:00.001-07:00

I posted recently praising the work of our border officers in dealing with some not so nice individuals. Unfortunately, I know have to give them a smack.

According to a news story by the Canadian Press, an internal review of Canada Border Services Agency determined that 535 people convicted of serious crimes were allowed to enter Canada for compassionate or economic reasons. What sort of serious crimes?

The list of crimes included child molestation, fraud, automobile homicide, burglary, bank theft, arson, cocaine trafficking, handgun possession and other offences.

Border guards are allowed to issue temporary resident permits at their discretion. These would be required for someone with a criminal past. But these shouldn’t be handed out as if you could get them in a crackerjack box. Exceptions are supposed to be for

…humanitarian or compassionate reasons, or for the economic benefit of Canada.

And the time limit on these permits can be from a day to three years. Once people are in the country, there’s no way to track them unless they pop up on Canadian authorities radar.

This is all very frustrating, especially when the US is already criticising us for our supposed lax border. But this also raises a very important question that applies to both sides of the US/Canada border: why are we allowing our border officers to make these type of calls?

In my mind there are two main issues that a border deals with: Security and Immigration.

Security deals with the criminal aspect as well as the environmental. It’s the piece that catches the bad guys and ensures that nothing that could potentially harm citizens is allowed to enter the country.

Immigration deals with the social and economic aspects of the border. Work, migrating, visiting, etc.

Both, IMO, require a different set of skills. I think back to my own experience at the US border where, when I stated that I was going to speak at a conference for free, the officer said “So you’re going just out of the goodness of your own heart?” He’s trained to look for people trying to enter the country illegally – a security issue.

But the reality is that many people *do* cross over and speak for free, especially in my industry. But why would the expectation be that this officer, trained in a form of law enforcement, be able to make valid judgement calls on matters of immigration?

In 2005 a Canadian attempted to cross the border for a work opportunity. He told the border guard that he was a professional blogger. The guards response? “Blogging isn’t a job.” Maybe not on the listing of TN-status qualifying positions, but in reality it certainly could be.

And that’s the problem with our border: we have guards on both sides that obviously are not qualified to make certain types of decisions. In the US, we see one extreme where a Canadian discovered to take LSD 40 years ago is now banned for life. In Canada, we see the other extreme where bank robbers and arsonists are allowed into our country.

If Canada and the US want to ensure that their borders stay as secure as possible without limiting commerce and trade, the roles and expectations of the officers who patrol our borders needs to be re-evaluated and re-aligned with 2009. Immigration issues cannot be scrutinized using the same methods you would in a security situation.

Canada’s New Vietnam?

2009-05-03T15:32:00.001-07:00

In the 70’s. Canada was a haven for Americans fleeing the Vietnam war. Many were educated college men who opposed the war and refused to allow themselves to be drafted. In addition, soldiers who morally opposed the war and the idea of being part of it also fled to Canada. Our country welcomed them with open arms.

In 1977, President Carter promised to give amnesty to those who had escaped to Canada to dodge the draft. That amnesty was not extended to the “deserters” who had fled to Canada while still serving the military.

Today, Canada has once again become a haven for those American soldiers that cannot agree to serve a military operation that they morally oppose. This time however, we are not as welcoming as we once were. While many cross over the border into Canada, they face the real situation of being deported back to the US where jail time and other punishments await.

In addition to the legal ramifications, there is also the social stigma of being a military deserter. Articles about individuals who escaped to Canada are littered with comments giving you an idea of the types of views at least part of the American population holds. Here are comments from a couple of those articles online:

“This three tour combat vet thinks he is a coward, a disgrace to his family, his state and his nation.”

“I honestly think that you are a naive coward who failed to comprehend the obligations you took on when you signed…

Go ahead and speak ill of your experiences and embellish it with drama; you're merely trying to justify personal cowardice and a failure to "man up" to your commitments.”

“Nobody sent for this deserter, she enlisted for MONEY and benefits. That was the deal, she knew it and signed a contract with MY Government. She deserves to be given the Max penalty that is available. She is a coward in my opinion.”

“Those deserters should be allowed to stay in Canada and never be allowed to come back into America. They should be made to renounce their citizenship! I served in the Army for 4 years...went to Iraq twice. I have 2 Purple Hearts and 2 Bronze Stars. I had the same feelings they had..but I had a job to do and I got paid, was taken care of by the Army and had a family to take care of.”

“I feel the deserters as well as the author have failed to realize that people must be held accountable for their actions. The simple fact is in this case is when you voluntarily take an oath to follow the orders of your superiors and the Commander-in-Chief, you have a responsibility to do so. Regardless of your personal beliefs or ideology.”

So how do we as Canadians deal with this? On one hand these people are, for all intensive purposes, criminals who are wanted by a government authority for breaking the law. On another, they are claiming to be against the actions of their military within the confines of a war that Canada itself refused to support. Canada takes in political refugee claims from citizens of various countries every year…why are these people not given the same level of consideration?

In fact a non-binding motion to stop deporting US deserters passed 137-100 in parliament, showing that there is a large number in Canada who feel that they shouldn’t be sent back.

This situation is not black and white though. There are questions of personal responsibility. There are questions surrounding whether escaping to Canada was truly the only option. There are questions on whether or not a soldier who feels strongly that something being done is immoral shouldn’t make their stand within their own ranks as opposed to cutting and running.

And at the same time, Canadians have always been a country who has used their military for peaceful, just purposes. We have joined into fights, but we have not started them. We have lost brave men and women who gave not only because it was their duty, but because they believed in what it was we were fighting for.

Do we not see ourselves in the eyes of these deserters who refuse to allow themselves to be used as a tool in activities that fall outside their moral boundaries?

Note: The quotes above were from two articles interviewing US military deserters. Kim Rivera’s story is here.Joshua Randall’s is here..

Canada’s Border Tested

2009-05-02T17:44:00.001-07:00

It’s been a busy week for our Canadian border personnel.

On Monday a Californian was caught at the Alberta border with a huge payload of child porn. From the article:

California native John Stephen Pichon, 46, was driving into Alberta on Monday when border security officials pulled him over for further examination. His vehicle and computer were searched and it allegedly turned up child pornography.

Although the actual event happened previous to this week, an Ontario court heard on Thursday that a Detroit man driving on the wrong side of the road blew through the border and into Canada…in a stolen car. his excuse?

"It was never his intention to cross the bridge into Canada," defence lawyer Maria Carroccia told the court. "He got lost in construction . . ."

And finally, just yesterday, an American is now in custody for running the Canada/US border into Manitoba. What’s troubling about this story is that when authorities finally apprehended him they found six firearms, a thousand rounds of ammunition, and several containers of fuel. Who knows what his final destination or intention was.

Don’t buy the hype that threats are only going from Canada to the US. Our border guards have to be watchful for illegal activity and real danger on an ongoing basis.

Steven Page Makes Mockery of USA Anti-Drug/Immigration Rhetoric

2009-05-02T07:53:00.001-07:00

In my last post I relayed the story of Andrew Feldmar, the 68 year old psychotherapist from BC that was banned from the US because he admitted to using LSD forty years ago.

This morning he came to mind as, in disgust, I read how Steven Page was given a clean criminal record. Steven Page is the former lead singer for the Barenaked Ladies band, and Canadian. He was caught in July with marijuana and cocaine and was charged with felony drug possession.

From the article in today’s The Buffalo News:

In October, a Fayetteville village justice reduced the charges to misdemeanors, and then approved an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal for all three defendants.

At that time, Judge Thomas J. Miller ruled that if the three avoided trouble and passed random drug tests for a six-month period, he would dismiss the charges. The six-month period ended on Thursday.

His lawyer, Mark J. Mahoney, made these statements:

He didn't get special treatment. He got fair treatment, despite his notoriety.

So let me get this straight:

An established Canadian professional who wrote in an online article that he took LSD forty years ago, who has grown children living in the US, and who has no criminal record is banned from the US; banned from seeing friends, banned from visiting his children, banned from visiting his grand children.

A Canadian singer caught in the US with drugs is charged with a felony, has it dropped to misdemeanour, and is told if he stays out of trouble for 6 months and is clean for those months, that all charges will be dropped and his record will be clean…like none of this ever happened, and he’ll be able to cross the border and honestly say “No, I have never been charged with any crime”.

No Mr. Mahoney, there was no special treatment at all. Glad to see the USA’s tough stand on drugs and who they let into the country seems to be working so well.

Denied for Nothing

2009-05-01T00:28:00.001-07:00

As I read the story featured in this post (from thetyee.ca, April 2007, by Linda Solomon), my heart broke and my soul raged. Knowing that this can happen, and does happen, is reason enough for all foreigners to re-think whether the USA is truly a destination that they want to travel to; especially if our acceptance into the country is based on how much we restrict our own freedom of speech in our home country.

Andrew Feldmar is a psychotherapist from BC. He’s 68 years old. He’s a survivor of the Holocaust and has been in Canada since 1956. He’s been married for 37 years and has two adult children (both living in the US). Respected in his field of study, he’s traveled through the US for work and also to visit his family. He’s done work with the UN and helped Chernobyl victims.

He’s also banned from entering the United States.

In the summer of 2006 he was crossing the border to meet a friend in Seattle. He was told that he was flagged randomly for further scrutiny. During this discussion the CBP officer Googled his name (a tactic that is obviously common now in all CBP offices). In the spring of 2001 Feldmar had published an article where he admitted taking acid…almost forty years ago. The officer discovered this article and the reference to taking acid. Not only was he denied entry “due to narcotics use”, but he was also banned from entering the US.

When Mike Milne, a spokesperson for US Border Protection, was interviewed about this he quoted the US Immigration Law Handbook where it says

"Anyone who is determined to be a drug abuser or user is inadmissible. A crime involving moral turpitude is inadmissible and one of those areas is a violation of controlled substances."

“But he was never convicted of a crime!” you may be saying. Unfortunately, it doesn’t matter. Again, from Mike Milne…

“Not necessarily the criterion. You can still be considered dangerous.”

Dangerous…a 67 year old man, who talked about taking a substance forty years ago, is somehow dangerous?! Where is the common sense in this. Where is the logic, the ability to use judgement in determining if this man is truly *dangerous* to the US public…which is what the borders are supposed to be determining!

The expense of continually applying for waivers is too much for him to undertake. As it stands, he is barred from visiting friends and seeing his children because the US government determined that he was a threat to the American public for taking acid 40 years ago; an act that he was never criminally prosecuted for in Canada.

This is cause for us to be outraged and to be afraid. The reach and power that the CBP officers are granted seem infinite, and their interpretation of the facts can have huge implications. Even more worrisome is the effect this has on those that would otherwise share their knowledge and experiences in the open realm. Many reading this might think again on what they post online in articles or blogs. That would be unfortunate.

The American government has every right to control their border in whatever way they see fit. But the American people should realize what this is doing to their international relations both abroad and at home. Americans should realize that billions of dollars in commerce is put at risk as more questionable decisions like the one done in Andrew Feldmar’s case are brought to light. Canadians visiting the US have already been in decline over the last few years…more stories like this aren’t going to help improve that.

The most troubling is how Mr. Feldmar’s statement at the end of the article:

I have been seen and labelled as a Jew, as a Communist, as a D. P. (Displaced Person), as a student, as a patient, a man, a Hungarian, a refugee, an émigré, an immigrant.... Now I am being seen as one of those drug users, perhaps an addict, perhaps a dealer, one can't be sure. In the matter of a second, I became powerless, whatever I said wasn't going to be taken seriously. I was labelled, sorted and disposed of. Dismissed.

This is wrong…this is not justice…this is not making US citizens safer.

Denied for Ignorance

2009-04-30T23:50:00.001-07:00

This story is from 2005, but the main issue still applies today: how have acceptable professions and an understanding of our changing world been incorporated into border relation policy?

Meet Jeremy. He tried to tone down the attention he got from his story, in part by removing some posts that were maybe more rant than logical substance, so I’m not going to provide links to his blog or related articles out of respect for that. Besides, this did happen 4 years ago, I’m sure he’s moved on.

Jeremy was travelling to the US for, from what I can tell, a meeting with a current or potential client, and also to meet with some people he had met online. For those of us, especially in the age of twitter, this sounds absolutely sensible: I have people on Twitter that have followed me, I’ve followed them, and I’ve never actually met them otherwise. Also, Jeremy’s main income came in part from blogging activities…again, something that in today’s world isn’t out of the question (arguments on the sustainability of that business model is another discussion).

Jeremy had a horrible time going through customs however. For one, the border guard stated that

Blogging ain’t a job.

Maybe what he meant was “Blogging ain’t a job listed on our NAFTA accepted professions” or maybe he just didn’t think that anyone could actually make a living being a blogger. Regardless, is it really a border guard’s place to determine whether a profession is legitimate or not?

Another issue was in how they communicated. An excerpt from his blog post:

Him: Why would you visit someone in the states you’d never met (I mentioned I was planning to visit several people whilst down there)

Me: Well, I have met most of them, but I’ve talked to them dozens or hundreds of times online.

Him: Do you have any of their phone numbers?

Me: No, but I talk

Him: You can’t talk to someone without a phone number. Stop lying to me.

Me: No, really, I can talk from my computer to theirs

Him: Don’t be a smartass. If you don’t have their phone number, and you’ve never met them, how can you have ever talked to them.

I have many friends in the US who I talk to every day via Twitter, comments on their blogs, or IM. Some I have never seen face to face. Some I have never talked to verbally, either by phone or by computer. This, for many, is normal. Why is this not explained as part of border guard training so that they can ask questions that should matter when determining a persons admissibility and not just trying to trip them up and make them nervous?

There was also mentioned that he was strip searched as well. I think the obvious issue here is that unless there was a suspicion of drugs or other contraband on his person, this in addition to the two hours he was held was unacceptable.

The unfortunate part of crossing the border is that you don’t know what you’re going to get: someone young who understands or someone older who is out of touch and not aware that society has moved forward. If there’s one lesson learned from this, its that we as travellers need to understand what the language of the border is…not to present falsely, but so that we avoid potential hang-ups on terms or words that are harmless but may be so alien that the default response is to treat them negatively.

Denied for Truth

2009-04-30T23:12:00.001-07:00

Meet Polyana. Her story is one I’m sure many can relate to, including myself. She wanted to come from Brazil to the US for just over two weeks to visit her family, attend her brother’s graduation, and be a bridesmaid in a friend’s wedding. It sounds like her family are currently in the US trying to get their green cards approved and are doing everything above board, but she decided to live in Brazil. Why not?

She explains how she brought all her documents to the US consul showing why she would be returning to Brazil, what she was going to do in the US, and being up front about her ties to the US (parents, friends, etc.). As she states…

My plan was to be completely honest. Honesty is the best policy, right?

And she’s right: honesty is the best policy. Where it breaks down is that US CBP doesn’t give you brownie points for being honest. While it would make sense that someone willing to offer information should be trusted more, that information is simply used to compare against the laws and make a decision. Polyana was denied. Not only was she denied but she was told she couldn’t re-apply for a visa until 2018, when her parents will be almost a decade older, her brother may be married and her friend will have children.

She sums up the most frustrating and infuriating aspect of her situation (and that of others who tried to be truthful):

What's not okay? Knowing that if I had gone to the consulate with a bullshit excuse to go to the U.S., with some plane ticket to Disney World, a fake name and passport, pretending I'd never stepped foot in the country before... they probably would've approved my visa.

I can honestly count on both hands how many people I know who have gotten visas to the U.S. or their permanent residencies (green cards) being 100% honest. And then Americans complain about the problems immigrants cause. Wonder if it's because they only let the shady ones in the front door.

And therein lies the biggest issue with the US border: every year it catches people who are trying to be up front with why they’re going down and yet thousands enter the country by presenting falsely without ever being second-guessed as long as their record is clean and they don’t do or say anything suspicious. The idea that the border is somehow being effective in stopping those that otherwise could be inadmissible, based on something as simple as getting an honorarium for speaking at a conference, is simply a mirage.

As we’ll see in my upcoming entries, dealing with the border isn’t about judgement calls. It’s about the black and white letter of the law, which always seems to be interpreted in the harshest of ways.

Denied For…

2009-04-30T23:04:00.001-07:00

The internet is littered with stories about people who have been denied trying to cross the US border and for varied reasons. Some of them are ludicrous, some are enraging, and some are heartbreaking; all show that the relationship that Canada and the US have shared for years is changing, and that moving between our countries will never be how it was.

It’s not just an issue for us though. Other countries experience the same issues trying to enter the US in this post-9/11 era. Their stories can be just as frustrating, and speak to how the US has responded to the international population.

This series of blog posts identifies some of the stories I’ve found recently that speak to different reasons for being denied entry to the US and the repercussions of being denied.

Denied for Truth

Denied for Ignorance

Denied for Nothing

Canada/EU To Hold Talks on Free Trade Agreement

2009-04-28T06:01:00.001-07:00

It was announced yesterday through many different news agencies that the European Union foreign ministers have agreed to officially enter free trade talks with Canada.

A joint European/Canada study determined that a free trade agreement could deliver $18.5 billion to the EU and $13 billion to Canada annually*. In addition, expectations are that the agreement will cover professionals temporarily working abroad and intellectual property rights among other things.

One of the articles mentioned above noted that all levels of Canadian government (Federal, Provincial, Territories) will be involved with the negotiations, which is great news. Each area of Canada has its own nuances, issues, and strengths and should be represented as such at the table.

While this is great news for Canada, my hope is that they take some of the lessons learned from the last free trade agreement we entered into (read: NAFTA) and ensure that Canadian interests are protected.

We need to ensure that we don’t open ourselves up to litigation from foreign companies because we enact laws to protect our people that said companies may not profit as much from.
We need to ensure that our natural resource exports are protected, so that while we can take advantage of the FTA, we also have the ability to turn off the tap if we determine a need for those resources at home.
We need to ensure that there is truly an openness to professionals working in either entity, and that the model to enable this does NOT follow that of NAFTA.

While I propose we enter these discussions cautiously, I’m also ecstatic that Canada is taking another step to reduce their dependence on the US and ensure that we as a sovereign country take care of our own.

The European Union/Canada summit will be occurring on May 6th. Watch your favourite news site and this blog for details of the event.

*Numbers are in Canadian dollars I’ve seen other numbers such as $27 million (USD?) and just under 20 million Euros as the potential annual value.

Filtering the 500 Hits

2009-04-26T12:59:00.001-07:00

According to raw data being used in Washington, 500 “hits” were registered on the US government’s terror watch by US Customs and Border Patrol for travellers coming from Canada.

In light of recent comments from Janet Napolitano, this number suggests that maybe she’s not all that off. Maybe Canada *is* a legitimate border concern.

But hold on…let’s take a closer look at that number.

The Toronto Star ran an article recently on this whole situation, and what they found was that when you break it down, only a small number of those 500 hits were actually Canadian passport holders. In fact…

…the vast majority of the individuals in question are either U.S. citizens or U.S. landed immigrants.

Furthermore, while land-based border crossings are tightening up their security, most of those hits were air travellers. As the Star’s Canadian source stated:

We're talking people, in quite a lot of the cases, whose journey began overseas. They typically would board a connecting flight in Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver – and when they trigger a hit on the U.S. watch list suddenly it seems like they are `Canadian' because they spent two or three hours in an airport,

Even more frustrating is the reaction from a US security source that confirmed off the record that Canada’s breakdown of the hits was correct, but that the US doesn’t get into that level of detail. In probably the most infuriating comment from the US source:

But I understand Canada's concern about the raw statistic. It's a valid concern. Nobody should take that number as any kind of proof that Canada is wildly more dangerous for us. That just isn't the case.

Considering that the 9/11 Canada connection myth is still considered truth by some US politicians, spinning these numbers does nothing to serve the security of the American people or further US relations with Canada.

Charlie Angus: Souvenir Freedom Fighter

2009-04-25T08:53:00.001-07:00

We’re gearing up for the biggest change to our border since it was implemented.

Our economy is struggling, with thousands being laid off or facing being laid off.

A Canadian, now 22, has been held in Guantanimo Bay since he was 15.

Our country is continually under attack by US companies exploiting Section 11 of NAFTA to sue our governments for millions of dollars.

And what does NDP MP Charlie Angus choose to bring up as a point of discussion in parliament? The fact that Canadian lapel pins are made in China.

Chuck feels very strongly about this issue. He raised a similar stink in 2005 where he was successful in stopping the Liberal government from outsourcing their production.

Culture needs to be protected in our country. The manufacturing industry needs to be protected in this country. But I question whether bringing up where souvenir pins are manufactured truly speaks to either of those areas and is a good use of time when our elected officials could be dealing with more important things.

Maybe Arizona Didn’t Get The Memo…

2009-04-25T06:20:00.001-07:00

I echo the question posed by the journalist from Fox News: What’s up with Arizona politicians?

Senator John McCain of Arizona, the guy who ran as the republican nominee for president in the last election, was asked on Fox News about Janet Napolitano’s recent mis-speaking that suggested she thought the 9/11 terrorists came through Canada. His response?

"Well, some of the 9/11 hijackers did come through Canada, as you know."

Maybe Napolitano’s gaffe is a good thing since it gives us an opportunity to educate all those who may still cling to the myth that Canada was the source of the hijackers. Obviously those that believe that myth are still out there, and more disturbing is that they may be at the higher levels of government in the US.

Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn, We’re Waiting…

2009-04-24T05:06:00.001-07:00

We, as Canadians, would like a response sir. How is it that the Canadian Revenue Agency made a horrible mistake, destroyed a man’s business and finances, and feels that they owe nothing in compensation?

I’m referring to the story of Irvin Leroux. A CRA auditor misplaced receipts and records at a CRA office, and without those Irvin’s tax bill ballooned to $900,000 in income tax and $100,000 in GST. He took them to court and won, having his tax bill set to zero.

But this story spans 1996 to 2005, and in that period of time CRA got a writ of seizure for his properties, which freaked out his banking institution which demanded he pay back in full his business loan.

He lost everything: house, business, land, income, savings.

And the CRA, as the story shows, is basically saying “Sorry.”

Minister Blackburn, this is outrageous! In Canada, we own up to our mistakes. In Canada we take care of our own. In Canada our government works FOR us.

We should all be outraged by this. This didn’t happen because of Mr. Leroux doing anything other than entrusting his documents with a CRA auditor.

Canadians trust in government to do the right thing has always been somewhat strained, but to know that corrections won’t be made due to government error makes me think of my American friends who have an outright fear of their government. I do not want that for Canada. This needs to be fixed.

Losing Friends and Alienating People

2009-04-23T12:27:00.000-07:00

*Note: Above image is a reference to a comedy film of the same name. Click here to see the film poster.

It’s been quite a week for Janet Napolitano, head of the US Department of Homeland Security. It started with an interview conducted by CBC Washington correspondent Neil Macdonald (transcript here, video here). During the interview she made some interesting quotes, the most damning seeming to suggest that the 9/11 terrorists did come through Canada. Below are some highlights:

Regarding why the border needs to be more stringent:

…because, in part, our two countries have different standards for visas and who is allowed in our countries, there really are some things that the border helps to identify.

Regarding parity between the US/Mexico and Canada/Mexico borders:

The law doesn't differentiate. The law says the borders are the borders and these are the kind of things that have to be done at the borders.

Secondly, yes, Canada is not Mexico, it doesn't have a drug war going on, it didn't have 6,000 homicides that were drug-related last year. Nonetheless, to the extent that terrorists have come into our country or suspected or known terrorists have entered our country across a border, it's been across the Canadian border. There are real issues there.

That last piece prompted Neil to ask if she was talking about the 9/11 perpetrators. Her response:

Not just those but others as well. So again, every country is entitled to have a border. It's part of sovereignty. It's part of knowing who's in the country.

The 9/11 Myth Rears Its Ugly Head

That last quote I mentioned did not go unnoticed. Michael Wilson, Canada’s ambassador to the US, made sure to clarify the facts to the Border Trade Alliance meeting that he was speaking at and express his frustration that these inaccuracies were brought up.

In response, Napolitano’s team said she “misunderstood the question” and thought Neil was referring to Ahmed Ressam. Ressam was the gent that tried to cross into the US with a carload of explosives bound for LAX. Note that this occurred in 1999, well before the 9/11 attacks.

Canada’s Immigration Standards a Risk

According to a CBC story, at the same conference Napolitano then made matters worse by suggesting that the Canada/Mexico border should be treated similarly in part because…

The fact of the matter is that Canada allows people into its country that we do not allow into ours.

That’s a pretty strong statement to make about one of your main trading partners, and one that we as Canadians should take offense to. Note that in the afore-mentioned interview, Napolitano was also quoted as saying

We (Canada and the US) have very dissimilar visa requirements.

so its obvious there is a sentiment in the DoHS, regardless of what spin they use, that Canada has a porous immigration laws.

It’s Our Border, but You Pay For It

Finally, truckers in the Atlantic area of Canada are frustrated with border administration fees they’re forced to pay when crossing the border.

We import food grown in the US, by US companies. We ship those by truck into Canada. But for our trucks to cross over, they have to pay fees. These have ballooned from $100 million a year after 9/11 2001 to an estimated 1 billion dollars a year today.

What does this mean? It means that ultimately some of that cost will be passed through to the consumers in Canada. And where do those fees paid out go to? Peter Nelson of the Atlantic Provinces Trucking Association suggests in the article that its subsidizing law, drug, and immigration enforcement…but at the southern border as well. Think about that:

Canada paying fees to import US products into Canada so that the US southern border is more secure.

Close Ally, Good Friend?

In that interview with Neil MacDonald, Napolitano is quoted as saying

We want to work with Canada. Canada is such a close friend and ally and good friends with the United States.

If I treated my friends the way the US DoHS is treating us, I’d be a pretty lonely guy. Let’s get rid of all the niceties and call it like it is: Canada/US border relations are heading towards a business relationship, not a friendly one. Which is sad…so many years of goodwill all going to waste.

Don't Take Pictures of Busses in London

2009-04-23T09:11:00.000-07:00

Have you seen these men?

This is a picture of Klaus “Spectacles” Matzka and his son, uh…Son-of-Spectacles!

Klaus and his son, tourists from Austria, were visiting London. As tourists will do they took pictures of various things, including double decker busses and the Vauxhall bus station, which does look pretty kewl:

Alas, all the picture taking was for naught. Klaus eventually encountered some police officers who erred on the side of paranoid caution and determined instead of innocently taking pictures they were somehow doing something more sinister. From the original article on the Guardian website:

But the tourists have said they had to return home to Vienna without their holiday pictures after two policemen forced them to delete the photographs from their cameras in the name of preventing terrorism.

Matzka, a 69-year-old retired television cameraman with a taste for modern architecture, was told that photographing anything to do with transport was "strictly forbidden". The policemen also recorded the pair's details, including passport numbers and hotel addresses.

Not surprisingly, Matzka has decided to cross London off his future travel plans after such a negative incident…and rightfully so. While I understand that authorities need to protect their citizens, that protection should not allow those authorities to overstep the boundaries established. And I’m not just talking about the pictures being deleted, which just paints the London officers in an imbecilic light (Just because you delete a file, on a memory card or on a hard drive, the file isn’t actually *gone* and it can be recovered).

The bigger concern is how Matzka will be treated if he were to return to the UK. The officers took down his passport number…but what did they do with that information? Did they enter it into their system? Does that information get entered into any other authorities’ database? If he tries to cross the border, will he be questioned further because some police officer thought he may have been insidiously taking pictures of London travel targets?

And what recourse would he have to clear his record? If the London police determine that the officers truly were out of line in their actions, will they willingly ensure that anything recorded in respect to Matzka and his son will be wiped out? Or will this be permanently etched into their records? For the elder Matzka this may not be as much of an issue as it is for his 15 year old son who may want to travel to the UK at some point in his life.

London has every right to police their society in the way they best see fit. If officers are being given directives to scrutinize people more closely, fine. But its in the best interests of the authorities to ensure that scrutiny is done in a reasonable way and to ensure that anything done in error is corrected or risk being painted as having authorities ok with terrorizing tourists. How ironic…

Does Canada Really Take the Border For Granted?

2009-04-22T18:55:00.001-07:00

Consider this piece from a Windsor (Ontario) newspaper (Windsor and Detroit are separated by a bridge).

In the article, the author tries to present a case for a less-stringent border due to the intertwined community and economy that exists between the two border communities. He talks about the economic spinoff Windsor saw from recent Final Four games, and how Detroit would receive similar spinoffs from upcoming events hosted on the Canadian side (although with the cheaper Canadian dollar, I'm not sure why Americans would want to stay in Detroit when they can get accommodations for less in Canada).

He also goes on to talk about how many Canadian nurses cross over the border every day to work in US hospitals. For a country dealing with high unemployment rates, this might not be the *best* argument to use for why the border should stay more open than closed.

But what's interesting is that there is, throughout the article, an air of entitlement; that people from Windsor had been crossing into the US for decades, seeing their brethren across the water as extensions of their community and not as part of an entirely separate one.

And don't get me wrong, that's a good thing. But at the same time, it also shows that we have come to take our border with the US for granted...and not just for granted, but that we somehow have ownership of that border. I would wager this sentiment is true for many border communities.

The author closes the article with this statement:

It's time for Ottawa and Washington to begin focusing on the removal of the unnecessary barriers to goods and services, and get our border working efficiently and effectively.

Realize that I absolutely agree with this. We need to have fair rules in place for Canadians crossing into the US and vice versa, and those rules need to be clear and easily understood by both countries.

But that’s not a border issue, that’s a policy issue. The border between our countries has always been that: a line drawn to separate two separate entities. A strong cross border community does not mean we get to ignore what that line truly represents or the ability of the countries on either side of that line to implement their government policies regardless of how incredibly stupid they may seem. It does mean, however, that we can and should complain loudly at what we see as damaging policy to both sides of the border…we just need to respect that border at the same time.

The Fine Line Between Security and Privacy

2009-04-22T18:51:00.001-07:00

Let’s play a game of “What if…”. What if you were a Canadian flying from Toronto to Vancouver. The only piece of luggage you had was a metal case containing $5000.00. When you went through security, the officers noticed that you were carrying a large sum of money with you.

Now what is the acceptable response from the security officers? Should they be allowed to question you about the money? How about your job, what you were doing in Toronto, what you’ll be doing in Vancouver? Realize that while carrying that much cash may seem at the least foolish, its not illegal.

Some of you might need more information. “What was the money for or from? What was I doing in Toronto, or going to do in Vancouver?” You may feel that you need to know whether this was absolutely innocent, or whether you were transporting drug money…and that knowing that will form whether you would relinquish information when asked.

Privacy

But why is that? Why do we feel that its ok for us to share information that we don’t legally have to supply?

Consider the experience of Steve Bierfeldt. Steve works for the Campaign for Liberty, a political group led by Ron Paul. Now there’s huge backstory to this situation, including a report identifying radical militia members released to Missouri law inforcement. In this report, they suggest that militia members commonly associate with third party political groups, and actually identify the Campaign for Liberty by name. So while this report had been floating around since the end of February, Mr. Bierfeldt finishes up at a conference in St. Louis, collecting just under $5000 from sales of books, marketing material, tickets, and other conference-related items that are associated with the Campaign for Liberty organization. He puts the cash and cheques into a metal case and goes to catch his plane to DC.

But when going through security, the TSA officers notice the money. They become suspicious and decide to question Steve further.

The Washington Times has published an article on the incident, but we have more than just words to go on: Steve recorded the questioning on his iPhone. Throughout the questioning, Steve is asked questions such as where the money is from, where he works, what he does there, etc. Steve responds time and time again with: Am I legally required to answer that question?

So let’s go back to the initial game of “What If”. Yes its odd to see that much money go through security. Yes, there may be a totally harmless explanation. But if we aren’t doing anything illegal, why should we feel that we have to explain ourselves? To be nice? Because our social conscience doesn’t want others to think we’re bad people? Because its easier for us just to be cooperative to authority so that we don’t miss our plane?

In an interview with The Washington Times, Mr. Bierfeldt writes…

"I was not refusing to answer the questions. I was only saying, as per the law, 'Am I legally required to answer the questions?'"

"We are becoming far too eager to give away our liberties in the face of false security. We want to make our plane and we don't want a five-minute hassle so we are eager to give up our freedom, and that is unfortunate."

In one of his more famous comments, Pierre Trudeau remarked:

The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.

Why should we feel that our privacy is something that should be sacrificed so easily to authorities when no illegal activity has occurred and therefore have no right to investigate?

Security

There’s another sentiment though and another way to look at the situation. By all of us giving up some of our privacy, we somehow make our shared experience safer (or at least that’s the theory).

I was at a casino for dinner one night with friends, and we took a picture of ourselves at the table. Security came over and explained that cameras were not permitted and actually gave the explanation that someone like a pastor or public figure could be there and might not want to be photographed. The *freedom* of taking a picture was taken away from all to ensure that those who probably shouldn’t be there could…and could be there without disguise.

While that scenario sounds twisted, its similar to how we’ve come to view airport security: if we all just provide whatever information is asked we ensure that those entrusted with sniffing out the bad guys will have an easier job and not have to waste time with those that have nothing to hide; we all give up something for the greater security of all.

I’ve read comments on some websites complaining about how they have to take off shoes at airports in the US and how silly it seems. Of course, the fact that a terrorist attempted to set off a bomb in his shoes puts this in perspective, and as a traveller I’m ok with going through this exercise if it means ensuring a safer experience; I’ll gladly give up not having to take off my shoes if it means nobody is trying to set their Nike’s off at 20,000 feet.

There’s also the idea of cooperation between travellers and those entrusted with their safety. Should those of us that travel without illegal intentions or transporting anything illegal not want to help our security personnel do their jobs better, easily filtering out the non-threats while focussing on those that may truly have unscrupulous plans?

The Fine Line

So where does this leave us? What is the correct approach to the What If scenario? I know that in Canada things may be seen as different then in the US. In reading and talking with US friends, there is definitely a distrust of government and authority that I don’t think exists (or at least not as strongly) in Canada. Canadian culture doesn’t have its base in the same ideals as the US, so maybe the line up here isn’t so fine?

Or maybe at the end of the day, in Canada we see our government as truly being a servant of the people…where the US sees its government as an overreaching authority interfering with their freedom and liberty?

But regardless of what side of the border you live on, the discussion on how much authorities should be able to question or learn about you under the banner of national security is still very much active and ongoing.

I’d love to hear thoughts on this, so please comment.

A Different Border View (or, It Ain’t Just Me)

2009-04-22T18:48:00.001-07:00

I found a great article by Michael Balboni from the Times Union website (paper published in Albany, NY). I’ve blogged a bit on the concern we Canadians should have if the US does secure the border with the same methods as the US/Mexico border. Michael’s piece gives an American perspective, and its one that supports the view many Canadians have and sheds light on how connected US/Canada border communities really are.

I don’t want to just re-post his article here, but I do want to point out a few parts.

There simply never has been, and never will be, a major influx of illegal immigrants across the northern border. This is because of climate, geography and relative prosperity in Canada; its citizens are not desperate for jobs in the United States.

…

When it comes to border security, one size does not fit all. What might (or might not) work at the Mexican border is not what will work at the Canadian border. We must move away from the "defend and protect" strategy and, instead, adopt one that enables and secures our cross border commerce.

He’s bang on with these comments. Canadians are not trying to escape Canada. In fact the vast majority of those that cross the border every year are doing so for tourist and vacation reasons; dollars that could be in jeopardy if the border is seen as more of a hassle to move through. And for commerce, Canada is already looking to further trade partnerships with China and Europe; we’ve realized that we’re not as tied to our continent as we once thought.

An Answer to the Question: Can a Canadian Get Paid to Speak in the US?

2009-04-22T18:46:00.001-07:00

A friend pointed me to a document on the US State Department’s website, which you can view here. The PDF lists the temporary business related travel that’s allowed under a Business Visitor Visa, or B-1. Scroll down the list, and we come to this:

Lecturer or Speaker

No salary or income from a U.S. based company/entity, other than expenses incidental to the visit. If honorarium will be received, activities can last no longer than nine days at any single institution or organization; payment must be offered by an institution or organization described in INA 212(g); honorarium is for services conducted for the benefit of the institution or entity; and visa applicant will not have accepted such payment or expenses from more than five institutions or organizations over the last six months.

Interesting…even more interesting when I look at my passport and realize I’ve been granted a B-1 before: when you declare that you’re speaking at the border, CBP officers can grant you a B-1 at that point without any additional paperwork. Apparently I was looking at the wrong thing when I attempted my trip to Tucson where I was to receive an honorarium for my talks; I assumed a TN status would cover speaking under NAFTA, but apparently the B-1 is the proper visa.

But therein lies the rub. While the US State Department may give you all the information you need to qualify for a visa, that alone doesn’t grant you access to the US. In fact, this page on the US State Department site states:

A visa allows a foreign citizen coming from abroad, to travel to the United States port-of entry and request permission to enter the U.S. Applicants should be aware that a visa does not guarantee entry into the United States. The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials have authority to permit or deny admission to the United States. (Underlining mine)

So basically the visa grants you permission to knock on the door and see if you can be let in, but it holds no promise on its own. So to answer the question I posed in an earlier post: yes, a Canadian speaker *can* speak in the US and, according to the US State Department’s documentation, *can* receive an honorarium for speaking. But its up to you to provide the answer as to why an American can’t fill the role you’ll be performing, as that may ultimately be what determines your entry.

[Update April 22/2009]

I was curious about what the INA 212(g) mentioned in the US Dept of State’s document on Business Visas that I referenced earlier was. INA seems to be a common acronym for the Immigration and Nationality Act. The website for US Citizenship and Immigration Services has a page devoted to it, but unfortunately the link on the page to actually view the act displays a “document not found” message (or at least it did when I tried to access it…let me know if anyone notices its available).

I did some Googling, and found what looks like the 212 section of the INA…but the subject matter doesn’t match the context of the business visa document; instead of listing institutions and organizations that can pay a speaker, it talks about aliens ineligible to receive visas and ineligible for admission. The subsections denoted with a (G) have nothing to do with the USDoS reference either. So…? Is there another document used with an INA acronym, or perhaps the INA document has changed and the reference in the state department’s pdf is inaccurate?

[End of Update]

Canada <3’s US Public Speakers

2009-04-22T18:45:00.001-07:00

I was talking to a US friend recently about what his experience is coming through the Canadian border when doing speaking at a user group, code camp, or conference. He said he’s never had a problem doing it. Huh…in fact, when I talk to any of my US friends who speak in Canada, none of them seem to have any issue and none of them withhold any information when declaring what they’ll be doing.

The reason for this is because Canada actually has a list of jobs that do not require a work permit. And oh…look what’s part of that list?

Public speakers

Guest speakers, commercial speakers or seminar leaders can speak or deliver training in Canada without a work permit as long as the event is no longer than five days.

In fact, even those from the US that are organizers or administrative staff of a convention don’t need a work permit…

Convention organizers

Organizers and administrative staff of international meetings or conventions being held in Canada do not need a work permit.

Note: People providing audiovisual services and other “hands-on” help at these events must have a work permit to work in Canada.

Now why would this be? Could it be that Canada understands the benefits that having smart people from other countries coming in to share their knowledge with the local population a good thing? But c’mon, that just sounds CRAZY!

Canada, Mexico, What’s The Diff?

2009-04-22T18:44:00.001-07:00

Apparently there isn’t one judging by the comments given by Janet Napolitano, the US Secretary of Homeland Security, at a recent Canada/US border conference in Washington. A few excerpts…

"One of the things that we need to be sensitive to is the very real feelings among southern border states and in Mexico that if things are being done on the Mexican border, they should also be done on the Canadian border,"

“We shouldn't go light on one and heavy on the other.”

"This is one NAFTA, one area, one continent, and there should be parity there. I don't mention this to suggest that everyone in this room will agree with that, I mention it to suggest it's something I have to deal with, and so I ask for your sympathy."

Let’s think about this. First of all, Canada is not being run by wild gangs on our border. Canada is not funnelling weapons from the US. Canada does not have people crossing the border in the thousands trying to live illegally there…we go to visit, not to stay. And while I don’t deny that attempts are made to bring drugs into the US through Canada, I would wager that it doesn’t even come close to the amount being passed through the US/Mexico border.

The argument that the US shouldn’t go light on one and heavy on the other makes no sense. On one border, you have obvious issues. On another, you have a friendly country that has been a solid trading partner with no related issues.

She also comments on the nature of border communities being too friendly as an issue…

"It's as though there's not a border at all. People are used to going back and forth, and the hockey teams go back and forth.... People just don't think of it as two different countries. But the reality exists that there's a border there."

So because Mexico and the US have horrible border-town experiences, that negates the decades of positive relationships built between Canadian and US border towns? And never mind the border towns: If you drive to Grand Forks on a long weekend, you’ll see just as many Manitoba license plates as you will North Dakota ones. The southern border states may not benefit from commerce from those coming up from Mexico, but the northern states definitely do benefit from Canadians coming down and putting into their economy…just like Canada benefits from Americans coming north. We’ve lived as good neighbours for decades, and now that should be squashed because of a bad neighbour thousands of miles away?!

This is a disturbing and insulting thought: that the US will consider Canadians crossing over the same as those from Mexico, on the sole ground that we’re foreigners; history, relationship, and commerce be damned!

In a recent interview, former Canadian politician David Emerson talked about the withering NAFTA advantage here in post 9/11, and he’s right. For one, NAFTA is outdated. In the 90’s, Computer Systems Analyst was a viable job title. Ask 10 professionals in the IT industry today, and I guarantee none of them will refer to themselves as that. The list of allowable professions needs a major retool. But why bother, when a country can simply disregard their commitments in light of current events?

James Travers from The Star did a great opinion piece talking about the border situation. He points out that both Canada and the US need to maybe re-think the ramifications that a more stringent border will produce:

It's hard to imagine much that's more urgent than nurturing a relationship that includes $600 billion in annual two-way trade and provides the U.S. with, among other things, secure energy.

For the US this is especially true for a couple of reasons.

For one, the economy will eventually get better and when it does they may find too many bridges to the north have been burned.

For another, Canada is finally realizing that they can’t just rely on their continental neighbour as much as in the past. Canada’s trade minister, Stockwell Day, is currently on a tour of China and Japan and will announce plans to open six new trade offices in China. Canada is also looking at entering a free trade agreement with Europe.

I have no doubt that there are tremendous issues along the Mexico/US border, and I have friends who live along those southern states who feel strongly about the topic. But for the US government to assume that the Canada/US border should be on parity with the Mexico/US border “just because” is irrational. It’s a black-and-white decision being made without any consideration of the established relationship with Canada and I’m guessing without the consultation of the northern states and bordering provinces on how implementing this will affect them.

Janet Napolitano asked the border conference audience for sympathy as she deals with this, and I have no doubt that this is a difficult decision to make considering the many passionate sides of the debate. But I would ask her to try and look at the big picture and the long term implications that making stronger protectionist actions will result in. As a Canadian, I love the United States. But if the US doesn’t want to be as friendly anymore, there are others willing to fill that role.

Done With US Travel for a While

2009-04-22T18:40:00.001-07:00

Today was my final time trying to enter the US to do what many other people have done in my industry before: go and speak at a conference.

The reason I was given this time was that although I had forfeit the speaking fee they were going to pay me, I was still going to be speaking at a conference where other speakers were getting paid, and that there was no reason an American couldn’t fill that spot. When I asked if there would have been any issue if the conference was a free one and nobody was getting paid, I didn’t get an answer.

This all started of course when I was up-front and honest about the speaking engagement the first time I went through, which flagged me in their system. This became very obvious this past weekend when I attended the Twin Cities Code Camp and was at the border for an hour. On that entry I specified that I was going for a shopping weekend, which I was; I was also planning on going to the Twin Cities Code Camp, a free event and one that I was volunteering at. I didn’t mention that because why confuse the issue trying to explain what a code camp was, that it was free, and why I would consider speaking for free. This was a mistake for two reasons…

For one, they do have internet at CBP offices. So if you’re flagged, and you have to go for secondary interviewing, realize that you may be Googled. And as such, blog posts talking about said code camp or eating a Chipotle Burrito may appear as well (“So how was the burrito?” was a question I was asked).

But there’s a bigger reason why that was a mistake, and it bleeds into a much larger issue that has no good or bad guys, right or wrong.

Canadians have long taken for granted our border with the USA. If there’s one thing this experience has taught me, its that there is an air of entitlement that we’ve had in regards to being able to cross over and do whatever we want in the US. We assume that we’ll be as welcome as we were in the past, and that there really isn’t that much difference between us: we drive the same cars, watch the same television and movies, listen to the same music, read the same books.

But we are different. We are separate, independent entities with different history, values, and morals. So to the second reason why that was a mistake: I, as a Canadian, have no right to make a call as to whether I’m of a benefit to a neighbouring country. I can rationalize all I want that the event is free, and that I’m actually trying to help other Americans by sharing my knowledge, but that’s not my call to make.

The US is in a state of protectionism right now whether they admit it or not. When you continue to hear about the vast number of jobs being lost, it makes sense that they want to ensure their people are being protected first and foremost. Many of those people include friends of mine whose companies are laying off people.

So after thinking things through, I’ve decided to put a moratorium on trying to travel to the US in the near future.

For one, there really isn’t a huge benefit right now: I can still speak in Canada, do webcasts that American developers can view and take advantage of, and the benefit of exposure from within the US doesn’t mean much when most companies are cutting staff and reducing their projects

For another, I’m just sick of the hassle. For the type of activities my industry engages in (code camps, conferences, etc.) I’d rather not have to try and play games and work around the protectionist policies that have been put in place (and which, again, the US is in every right to implement). I’d rather be up front and honest, but with a country that isn’t trying to find reasons not to allow someone to enter.

My hope is that at some point the US and Canada will be able to get back to where our countries were before 9/11. At the same time though, I hope that Canada realizes during this time that it has its own identity; that we are more than just who we border against. Maybe locking down the border will become a good thing after all.

CBC – Canadian Accused at U.S. Border of “Stealing American Jobs”

2009-04-22T18:37:00.001-07:00

From the CBC article:

<Start>
A B.C. sales representative who markets equestrian products in Canada was barred from crossing the U.S. border to attend a trade show last month by a U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer who accused him of trying to steal American jobs.

"He looked at me, and in a yelling voice he said, 'You're friggin' stealing jobs away from American citizens,' and I tried telling him that I wasn't," Joel Borsteinas told CBC News.

"I said, 'Well I don't actually bring the products in. I just write the orders. It's all in Canada,'" said Borsteinas.

"He says, 'Oh you are a consultant then.' I says, 'No — I'm just a salesman. I sell to Canadian stores.' And he says 'Nope, you are a consultant,'" said Borsteinas. "Once again, he says 'You are stealing jobs away from us.'"

Borsteinas said he was then fingerprinted and sent back into Canada. The border officer warned him if he tried to enter the U.S. on business again, he should expect to be prosecuted.
<End>

(Read the entire article here.)

Canadians should be outraged at this. It’s one thing to legitimately question whether the position someone is doing can or should be filled by an American first. It’s entirely another to accuse someone of intentionally stealing jobs away. This is an abuse of power, as is the fear-mongering of threatening prosecution if Mr. Borsteinas ever tried to enter the US on business again.

I may not agree with the outcome of my own recent experiences, but I’m sure glad that the CBP officers I dealt with were professional.

Adventures In NAFTA: Washington, We Have A Training Issue

2009-04-22T18:28:00.001-07:00

Welcome back to the further adventures with NAFTA. Last episode, we had a face to face encounter with the Customs and Border Patrol. Part of that interaction was getting a phone number that I could call to gather more information. This is where our story continues…

I called the number given, which announced that I was calling the CBP office at the airport. I went through the automated menu, waiting for the part where I could ask questions about visas. I waited…and waited…and waited, listening through the menu until I was told that if I wanted to ask about visas, I could call the US Consulate in Calgary. So much for speaking to a human here at home.

So I called the number to Calgary, listened through another long menu until *drum roll*…I was directed to a US Gov website!

To the website I go, where I find the same numbers that I had found before; the ones that charge 1.59 – 1.89 a minute for help. At this point I bite the bullet: I call the 1.59 number, give my credit card number, and promptly get passed to a human. Finally!

Unfortunately, although she was very pleasant and friendly and legitimately tried to help, she didn’t have any useful information for me. I actually got put on hold while she checked with someone else as to an answer for my question (remember, 1.59 a minute!)

Oh, and let’s just refresh ourselves with the question: “For a Canadian to speak at a conference in the US and get paid for it, what visa is required?”

K, so this lady couldn’t help me but she did give me a number to call. It was the CBP office around Niagra Falls.

So I call, and relay to the gentleman I talk to there my plight. He says that a TN might be what I need, but then transfers me to another officer who tells me that it sounds like I need a B1-I94. But…to be safe, I should probably call the Rainbow Bridge border crossing office (Niagra Falls, New York) because they have more senior guys.

Ring a ding to the other office where I talk to one of the “senior” guys there. He informs me that I need an H1 because I’m getting paid. Weird, because…um…the TN allows for getting paid?

So let’s recap here:

Winnipeg CBP officers give me a number to get more information. It’s a local number.
The number simply directs me to call the US Consulate in Calgary.
The US Consulate directs me to the US Gov website.
The US Gov site has pay-for-call numbers, one of which I call.
The rep on the line directs me to a CBP office somewhere close to Niagra Falls.
First guy I talk to there says a TN is what I need. He redirects me to another guy.
That guy tells me I need a B1-I94, but that I should call the Rainbow Bridge CBP office because they have “senior” officers.
I talk to a senior officer at Rainbow Bridge who tells me I actually need an H1.

Not a TN, a TN, a B1-I94, an H1, and an I Don’t Know. 5 different answers from five different Customs and Border Patrol officers or immigration representatives for a question that should be simple to answer.

Does anyone else see a problem here?

Adventures in NAFTA: Can a Canadian Get Paid to Speak?

2009-04-22T18:27:00.001-07:00

I should be sitting in the Denver airport right now waiting for my connecting flight to Tucson, but I’m not. Instead I’m here in Winnipeg trying to make sense of my experience with the U.S. CBP (Customs and Border Protection) representatives.

So first, some background: For those of you that don’t know what it is, NAFTA stands for the North American Free Trade Act. This act was intended to help make trade between Canada, the US, and Mexico easier and its been in existence since 1994.

Part of NAFTA is allowing professionals to work in another NAFTA country under certain guidelines and regulations. These professionals need to provide sufficient documentation and can then receive a TN visa which allows them temporary access to the US for the purpose of conducting business. The documentation includes a letter from the employer, proof of education, professional experience summary, etc.

Ok…so back to me not sitting in Denver…

I was scheduled to fly down to record some sessions for a virtual conference to air later this year. Part of the speaking deal was that I’d be given an honorarium for each session that I presented. When I hit customs at the airport, I was up front that I was going down for business, and I was directed to an office for further discussion.

From here I interacted with two CBP officers who asked a tonne of questions:

- What are you doing there?
- Who do you work for?
- What do you do for your employer?
- Why are they bringing you down and not giving this position to an American?
- What qualifications do you have for this position?
- What is your professional experience?
- What is your schooling?

There was also some confusion with the answers I gave. For instance, I mentioned that I’ve spoken before but this was the first time I’d be getting paid for it. This got the response of “Why would you speak without getting paid?” For anyone not in the IT industry, I can see how this would be a perfectly valid question. After all, I’m sure there’s no Border Crossing Camps the same way we have Code Camps.

On the point of professional experience, I mentioned that I’ve been in the industry for 8 years. This prompted going through a listing of all my professional history and how long I had been at each. Suggestion: Bring a copy of your resume with you.

After much discussion, the verdict was returned that the work I would have performed wouldn’t fall under NAFTA or a TN visa. Now…here’s where things do get a bit confusing for me…

The reason I was given was that a Canadian cannot get paid to speak in the US. I made sure to clarify with the CBP officers that agnostic of the industry or position, the issue was the getting-paid-to-speak and not anything to do with my profession or industry. They confirmed that.

The actual wording was along the lines of: What you’re doing doesn’t fit within the list of accepted professional occupations. As I’ve been thinking about this, it doesn’t make sense. I would fall under the Computer Systems Analyst, and I’m acting under that professional designation as part of my speaking role. However, that’s how *I* see it.

When I was asked what I did at my company, I responded “Software Developer”. If the CBP officers are trained to allow *only* those professions on the official list, then perhaps unless you identify yourself as one of those professions you’re automatically stricken?

One frustration was that I was told if I recorded the sessions up here and simply *sold* them to the operators of the client, that would be fine. Yet, there’s no real difference between that and what I was going to do other than I was going to travel to the conference studios to record my sessions.

One thing I do want to make clear: the CBP officers that I dealt with were all cordial, patient (I asked a LOT of questions and for copies of documents I was signing), and helpful. I was even given a number I could call if I had further questions.

And I do…mainly around whether its true that a Canadian, regardless of experience or profession, can NOT speak at a conference in the US and get paid for doing it. But even more, I’m curious about the do’s/don’ts that go into acquiring the TN visa and being given the go ahead for getting in to the US to work under NAFTA regulations (and no, I don’t suspect I’ll be given that information during my phone call tomorrow ;) ).

Here are some thoughts from my experience (some I already mentioned, but repeating here for summary):

- Show up extra early at the airport. My experience took about 45 minutes to the point I was told I wouldn’t be flying, and another 15 or 20 minutes to complete paperwork. Even if the result had been a go-ahead, this process is still an hour long.

- Bring your resume. You will be asked about your professional background. Instead of pulling dates and names out of your head, just hand over your resume.

- Identify yourself within the appropriate NAFTA professional occupation. I’m not sure if this had any bearing on the decision, but it can’t hurt to play cautious.

- Bring any supporting letters or documents that validate you in your profession. For us in the MVP program, remember that letter of validation we have access to? This would be a good place to use it!

- Ask questions and ask for copies of any documents you sign. This is just common sense I would think, but some people might be intimidated. Don’t be…ask. The officers I dealt with were more than happy to oblige.

I’m hoping to glean more info over the next few days, and I’ll do a follow up blog post in the upcoming weeks. In the meantime, if anyone has thoughts, questions, or experiences similar that they’d like to share, please do!