Drive Like a Canadian and Get A Bullet Up Your Ass

“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

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

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

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

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

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

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.