Liberal Minority Government 2021 - ????

[brihard]

Nefarious players are taking advantage of Canada's weak screening and come one/come all policy, and using Canada as an easier stepping stone into the US via the US/Can border which is, due to the nature of both countries, lightly guarded. Canada should do its part, not only in the best interests of Canada but as partner in North American security. Failing to recognize or acknowledge that is a straight up copout of an unserious country.

QV’s right.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think that for many, many of President Elect Trump's supporters, perception is far more important than is reality. My guess is that some illegal drugs and some illegal immigrants are crossing into from ; far fewer, I suspect than are coming across the USA/Mexico border but enough to make it true and, therefore, enough to force Canada - no matter which party is in power - to take some action to address Mr Trumps' concerns.

Those are actions we should have been taking anyway by exercising proper controls of all border crossings.

There is a report in today's Globe and Mail which says that:

"A Jordanian terror suspect was deported two weeks ago by the U.S. after crossing illegally from Canada where he was on the run from Canadian border officers.

Mohammad Hasan Abdellatif Albana had slipped across the border to Canada from the United States in 2017 and then claimed asylum in an effort to stay. When he crossed the border back into the U.S. illegally, he was being sought by Canadian border agents after his appeals to remain in the country as a refugee had failed."

Reality, meet perception.

 

[Brad Sallows]

It's not canada's job to vet/stop people entering the US, that's the US's job. They control their borders not us.

Not a position we should adopt. If the US is dissatisfied with our entry controls because we, like Mexico, figure the people are just passing through on their way to the US, then the US will do just as you suggest and control their borders.

"OK, Canada. Until we're satisfied with your entry controls, there's going to be one guy and a dog at each border crossing. They will physically search (visual examination) every vehicle and every container for people, explosives, ammunition, explosives precursors, weapons, etc. We will limit the number of vehicles crossing into the inspection area to a maximum of 3 at a time. Making parking/queueing arrangements on your side is your problem."

I exaggerate, but the point is that it's in our interests (economic) to meet US standards to minimize the "transaction cost" of crossing into the US from Canada.

 

[Remius]

Canada is in no position to humor anyone.

Actually we are and we should. I don’t think you are understanding what that actually means. Not a knock to you just that you might not be understanding what I mean by that.

I'm guessing Canada isn't going to get the nice neighbor pass with a Trump administration. They are going to want to see tangible results, or we pay the price.

Exactly the point of humouring them on this.

 

[QV]

Actually we are and we should. I don’t think you are understanding what that actually means. Not a knock to you just that you might not be understanding what I mean by that.

Exactly the point of humouring them on this.

To suggest humouring them is to suggest the requests are unreasonable. Securing your country is not unreasonable, unless you’re Canada. Canada is about to pay for that kind of attitude, and it’s about time.

 

[Remius]

To suggest humouring them is to suggest the requests are unreasonable. Securing your country is not unreasonable, unless you’re Canada. Canada is about to pay for that kind of attitude, and it’s about time.

No QV. That isn’t the suggestion at all.

humouring

1. present participle of humour 2. to do what someone wants so that they do not…

dictionary.cambridge.org

“to do what someone wants so that they do not become annoyed or upset”

It applies to their perceptions, real and or imagined. We have to humour both.

 

[Haggis]

Not a position we should adopt. If the US is dissatisfied with our entry controls because we, like Mexico, figure the people are just passing through on their way to the US, then the US will do

Those entry controls are also applied to returning US citizens and US businesses who would be quick to write letters voicing their displeasure with being treated "like Canadians". And those same controls would have to be applied equally to all foreign nationals, not just Canadians. Immigration lawyers would have a cash banquet with that.

"OK, Canada. Until we're satisfied with your entry controls, there's going to be one guy and a dog at each border crossing.

Atilla Bin Hassan O'Rourke arrives in Montréal by air for a 180 day visit. He has a valid passport and visa. He gets screened by CBSA, randomly referred to Immigration secondary for a detailed examination. No criminal history. Routine travel history. No intelligence or security concerns. Educated. Financially stable. No health concerns. Family and employment ties to the home country shows a high probability he will depart as scheduled. Two hours later he's deemed admissible into Canada. He vanishes.

Three months later after becoming radicalized in-person, face-to-face by the Montréal branch of the IRA, Atilla drives a renal car into the US at the busy I87 port of entry of Champlain NY, where he is examined by USCBP as thoroughly as he was by CBSA. He travels onwards to New York City and commits a violent criminal act, dying in the process. A true "lone wolf".

CBSA, with only 8500 officers, a small fraction of whom are working "inland enforcement" - actively tracking down "overstays"- processes millions of travelers each year, crossing in both directions. This is one person with no reason to be concerned about him until after his 180 days he fails to leave. Even then, he can live under the RADAR for years until he gets arrested for assault, tries to access social assistance or government services without entitlement or gets hit by a car, if he ever does. Until then, he's a ghost.

How in the hell is that our fault?

Rhetorical question.

 

[RangerRay]

IMHO, we should be re-establishing the Port Police.

 

[Furniture]

How in the hell is that our fault?

Because Canada has far too few CBSA officers, a problem entirely within the control of government.

We have been cheap with border security because it hasn't been a problem... Now it's a problem, and our being cheap for so long is going to be used against us, in the exact same way the lack of defence spending will be used against us.

 

[Haggis]

Because Canada has far too few CBSA officers, a problem entirely within the control of government.

In the scenario I gave there was one interaction with CBSA because only one was needed.

We have been cheap with border security because it hasn't been a problem... Now it's a problem, and our being cheap for so long is going to be used against us, in the exact same way the lack of defence spending will be used against us.

Border security means keeping threats out of Canada. If a second order effect of that is enhanced US security then, great. But it's not CBSA's mandate to proect the US.

Should we hire more BSOs? Should we invest in more and better detection technology? Should we allow BSOs to patrol between land and marine ports of entry? Should we allow BSOs to carry their firearms inside airport terminals? Yes, to all. Someone please make a decision!

 

[Brad Sallows]

Rhetorical question.

Imaginary scenario.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Someone please make a decision!

Impossible to do in any meaningful way, if we use imaginary scenarios to guide decision making.

Simple reality: if we aren't secure enough to suit the US, then the US might do more on its side. It's not a moral issue. We can take an interest in doing some things to minimize the costs of crossing the border, or just accept the costs.

Similarly, we can try to find something we can do to please the new administration that will deflect an exciting new set of tariffs, or we can comfort ourselves that we occupy the high ground of economic reason while the tariffs go into effect.