Finally, the gub'mint is aware of the Canadian menace

[Berkut]

according to Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff, in October 2008 the No Fly list contained only 2,500 names

Whew, and CC was almost one of them!

I suspect that it might take a bit more than not knowing who plays second to get on the US no fly list.

[Jacob]

Thats fair enough.  But I would note that there are legitimate reasons to turn someone away at the border.  There are some that may not be fair to you personally (perhaps due to people you were travelling with), but the mere fact of a person being turned away is not by itself proof of terrible treatment.

I agree that being turned away is not proof of terrible treatment.

In all of the cases there was, of course, a legitimate reason.  Otherwise I wouldn't have been turned away.  In one of the cases it was accompagnied by what I can only describe as explicit intimidation; in one case it was accompagnied by what I'd term pointeless petty hassles (e.g. "you can't take these things with you to the US, you have to dispose of them.  OK, done?  Alright, we're not letting you in"; and in the last case it was actually quite sympathetic "I'm going to turn you back for this explicit reason, if you come back with X and Y like this it shouldn't  be a problem.  You triggered an arbitrary flag and the format of the proof that you have that it doesn't apply to you isn't convincing in this context though it normally is, though you couldn't know that, but this and that will be sufficient." - of course on the second time through, no one gave a fuck about my proof and just waved me through.

In fact, I am not claiming to have been treated terribly.  I am claiming that there have been enough hassle and there is enough risk (small, but with potentially dire consequences) that it has affected my behaviour.

The one instance of intimidation combined with the one instance of petty spitefulness combined with the many instances of plain rudeness and hostility has had an impact.

[Grey Fox]

There's also a Canadian no fly list, btw.

[Oexmelin]

Obviously, the answer is then to broadcast the information that when border guards are using that threat, people should never actually take it seriously, should fearlessly tell border guards to mind their manners, should answer in the same tone they are asked question, should refuse to answer to questions when they feel it is irrelevant, should boldly threaten border guards to lodge complaints - since their threats are actually empty, their powers well-checked, and travellers' fear and humiliations are unfounded. 

[Jacob]

That is some good faith discussion you have going here. Ad hom attack always is a great way to show what good faith you have in honest discussion.

The good faith discussion ended a while ago.  My mistake was assuming you were interested in that to begin with

[Berkut]

There's also a Canadian no fly list, btw.

I bet they could put me on that if they didn't like me. I might have to pass on NBW next year.

[saskganesh]

It is a little bizarre.

I think he is upset because he perceives that the US is being single out for being particularly bad.

damn. If that's the case, I think I've read this thread more than a few times before.

Berkut is from Arizona as well correct? 

[Jacob]

I bet they could put me on that if they didn't like me. I might have to pass on NBW next year.

We can only hope.

[Berkut]

That is some good faith discussion you have going here. Ad hom attack always is a great way to show what good faith you have in honest discussion.

The good faith discussion ended a while ago.  My mistake was assuming you were interested in that to begin with

That is a very cheap cop-out for engaging in personal attacks rather than discussion.

I didn't make this about YOU, I don't see why you feel the need to make it about ME - rather than the obvious reasons people resort to fallacies.

[Berkut]

I bet they could put me on that if they didn't like me. I might have to pass on NBW next year.

We can only hope.

Very nice. Your good faith shines through. Maybe you could insult my mom while you are at it?

[saskganesh]

There's also a Canadian no fly list, btw.

I bet they could put me on that if they didn't like me. I might have to pass on NBW next year.

I'm writing Senator Kinney now. it should be no problem, really. :canuck:

[Berkut]

Obviously, the answer is then to broadcast the information that when border guards are using that threat, people should never actually take it seriously, should fearlessly tell border guards to mind their manners, should answer in the same tone they are asked question, should refuse to answer to questions when they feel it is irrelevant, should boldly threaten border guards to lodge complaints - since their threats are actually empty, their powers well-checked, and travellers' fear and humiliations are unfounded. 

No, people should just quit being hysterical over what they heard happened to someone else, and note that thousands of people cross the border without incident every day, and you will almsot certainly have no real trouble yourself as long as you make sure your id and such is in order.

[ulmont]

No, people should just quit being hysterical over what they heard happened to someone else

There are a number of first-person anecdotes in the thread, which didn't "happen to someone else."

[Malthus]

Two things:

1. I am not saying you should not believe it - I am saying getting hysterical about things that haven't actually happened is silly and betrays a deeper issue. They *might* have turned me away! They *might* take a disliking to me! Golly, this only happens in the US, of course!

2. Just because everyone says something is so, doesn't make it so. This kind of "groupthink" is common, in fact, and self-reinforcing.

Perhaps the incidences of "hassle" is really not that different, but the perception of the US has declined considerably, and more specifically, the US government, such that now people notice it and comment on it a lot more. More people comment, more people notice, they comment more, suddenly it seems like this epidemic, where in reality, maybe little has actually changed.

Most of the time crossing the border is uneventful. Sometimes you are unlucky, and your car is the 14th in line, so it gets to be the car that is pulled out and searched. Maybe now it is every ten cars instead of every 20. Maybe now there are 50% more people trying to cross, so in fact it all seems more time consuming and a greater hassle.

Or maybe it is really the case that in fact the US Border Patrol is going out of their way to make visitors not want to come to the US. So far, I haven't seen anything but anecdote and hearsay to suggest that the issue is anything worthy of the hysteria though.

Well, you are unlikely to hear anything but anecdote. "Anecdote" is just people's experiences, and what else is there to determine the matter? It is hard to scientifically measure stuff like "attitude", and that is exactly what people are commenting on - a general attitude of unhelpfulness which many people have experienced.

I do not agree that this simply reflects people's opinions of the US in general. If that was the case, you would imagine that the election of Obama (very popular here) would change the perceived border situation for the better - but that hasn't happened.

Isn't it rather more rational to link it to the actual policy changes? When you have the chief bureaucrat in charge of border security saying stuff like 'we should treat the Canadian border crossing like that to Mexico', isn't it at least partly likely that the views of the chief may filter down to the actual people manning the border?

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/fp/Comments+simply+border+bizarre/1524885/story.html

In her brief tenure, Napolitano, a one-time Arizona attorney-general, has bizarrely suggested that measures implemented at the Mexican border also should be applicable to Canada's border.

She has spoken of a need to move from a culture of "no border" to "border."

At a Washington, D.C., conference this week, Napolitano remarked that Canada, under its immigration and refugee provisions, allows in people who would be inadmissable in the U.S.

Also this week, in a CBC interview, she gave the impression some of the 9/11 perpetrators had crossed the border from Canada. This myth has been promulgated in the past by other American politicians, notably Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

With stuff like this comming out of Homeland Security, combine that with:

1. actual increase in bureaucratic barriers; and

2. plenty of "anecdote" of instances of unhelpfulness and hassles.

The needle shifts from "mostly group-think, nothin in it" to "yeah, there is a definite problem here".

[Barrister]

That is some good faith discussion you have going here. Ad hom attack always is a great way to show what good faith you have in honest discussion.

The good faith discussion ended a while ago.  My mistake was assuming you were interested in that to begin with

  Poor show JAcob.

Berkut rarely if ever goes into "full troll" mode.  This is how he has a good faith discussion.  You know that.