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

[Berkut]

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."

Actually, there is exactly one - Jacobs. Which carry some weight, certainly, although his immediate retreat to personal attacks and dragging the discussion into the gutter make me wonder what exactly he is doing in the thread, since he clearly doesn't actually want to talk about anything.

The rest are what happened to someone else, and CC imagination about what could have happened to him. What *actually* happened to him was that he was stopped at the border, asked some questions, then went on and watched a baseball game.

So there is a decided lack of actual examples of these terrible things that supposedly justify the hysteria.

[Oexmelin]

There is a difference between: «that happened to my father» and «that happened with the neighbour of a guy I know vaguely».

[Berkut]

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".

Well, the needle has more than two positions, I suspect. I've said from the start that it is neither all one or the other, as CC et al insist.

And the comments from whatsherface show little other than that she is a political appointee idiot. And since she wasn't in charge when any of the supposed travesties of border crossings that didn't happen, it seems a little unfair to blame it on her. Give her some time though, I am sure she can fuck it up. Although what is likely is that everyone will ignore her and the actual policy decisions will be made by the career people who actually run things.

[Berkut]

There is a difference between: «that happened to my father» and «that happened with the neighbour of a guy I know vaguely».

Indeed there is - but that doesn't mean we have the entire story, or even that YOU have the entire story, or that what happened is typical or routine.

[Barrister]

There is a difference between: «that happened to my father» and «that happened with the neighbour of a guy I know vaguely».

I have some sympathy for your father Oex, but really if you lose your cool at the border I think you'd know what might happen.  It was compounded by the fact your father was on a deadline that he missed, but that was not the border's fault.

[ulmont]

Actually, there is exactly one - Jacobs. Which carry some weight, certainly, although his immediate retreat to personal attacks and dragging the discussion into the gutter make me wonder what exactly he is doing in the thread, since he clearly doesn't actually want to talk about anything.

The rest are what happened to someone else, and CC imagination about what could have happened to him.

CC's story says that he was questioned at the border in such a way that he does not want to come back to the US.

So that's two out of three (Barrister being the exception) Canadians reporting personal experiences crossing the border with US border officials that make them not want to come back to the US.

That does sound like a problem, for tourism if nothing else.

[Berkut]

Perhaps, but it is a problem without a solution if there reasons for not wanting to come to the US don't really have anything to do with their irrational fear of the border crossing.

To the extent that there is a solution, it would be a PR/info compaign by the US to combat this kind of hysteria, combined with some examination of actual problems with crossing that can be dealt with without compromising security. I suspect the latter is ongoing - or I hope it is.

The latest comments from the genius in charge would certainly put that into question. They certainly don't help to quell this kind of perception.

[MadBurgerMaker]

"Going to see the Yankees play?  Sir, could you please pull your vehicle over to the side here and step out?  You have been randomly selected for waterboarding and beatings."

[Berkut]

"Going to see the Yankees play?  Sir, could you please pull your vehicle over to the side here and step out?  You have been randomly selected for waterboarding and beatings."

I meant the Mets!

Red Sox?

[garbon]

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.

I like the idea that if one just complies properly, law enforcement and the like won't cause you problems.(/incidents). If only it played out in reality.

[Berkut]

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.

I like the idea that if one just complies properly, law enforcement and the like won't cause you problems.(/incidents). If only it played out in reality.

It does. Mostly.

[Malthus]

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".

Well, the needle has more than two positions, I suspect. I've said from the start that it is neither all one or the other, as CC et al insist.

And the comments from whatsherface show little other than that she is a political appointee idiot. And since she wasn't in charge when any of the supposed travesties of border crossings that didn't happen, it seems a little unfair to blame it on her. Give her some time though, I am sure she can fuck it up. Although what is likely is that everyone will ignore her and the actual policy decisions will be made by the career people who actually run things.

But I'm not blaming it on her - it seems more likely she's a symptom rather than a cause, a bit more evidence that there is if you like a corporate attitude most unhelpful to visitors which is at work in the bureaucracy which runs the border.

The usual account is that this sort of thing is a backlash that started as a result of the 9/11 business.

What you should understand is that Canadians living close to the border think of themselves as not unlike Americans. In many cases they have relations on both sides of the border. They are used to the previous deal, which for years was basically that the border guards were friendly and helpful - maybe a bit wacky about drugs, but they usually did not treat Canadians as hostile aliens.

This whole 'ought to be a real border, just like that with Mexico' thing is a bit of a shock. Canadians are not used to being treated like suspicious third-worlders when going to shop in Buffalo or see a baseball game, and they don't like it much - leading them to prefer staying at home.

Now, you may not see any evidence to convince you that anything has changed, but from where I stand you are sounding like Canute denying that the tide comes up.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Red Sox?

Well shit..being waterboarded and beaten is better than the guy just dragging you into the woods and executing you. 

[Berkut]

Now, you may not see any evidence to convince you that anything has changed, but from where I stand you are sounding like Canute denying that the tide comes up.

I didn't say that, so how am I supposed to respond to it?

[Oexmelin]

No. We will never have «the entire story»: as Malthus already said, it will always be impressions, anecdotes, and conflicting points of view, just like whatever version the border guards will have will not be the entire story, nor any sort of government-sponsored study of «the experience of crossing the border». People have here offered up anecdotes and feelings of their own experiences, which you have brushed aside based on your own feelings. Fair enough. I am more likely to trust and know my father than you are, and will likely trust my father's word over that of a border guard, absent the case where my father would be a lying conniver. Likewise, you can hardly complain that, after all these years on the forum, people react strongly to you telling them they must be exagerating, their experiences are false or misleading, that they are guilty of group-think or united in their «US-is-big-meanie view». People act and modify their behaviour based on their experiences and feelings - you do the same on the forum.