Denied for Ignorance

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

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…

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

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

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

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…

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…

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

*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

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?

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

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)

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?

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

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?

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

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”

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

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?

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!