Being Wishy-Washy is More Frustrating Than Heavy Handed

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

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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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.