Practical Travel Safety Issues - Canadian who owns US cottage banned from US for five years

A Canadian relative brought this to my attention.

Two Canadians who live in the Vancouver area have owned a cottage in Point Roberts, that little spot of US territory that hangs down below the 49th Parallel on British Columbia's Lower Mainland near the ferry terminal.

Their side of the story is that a US border guard accused the husband of secretly living in the US more than 180 days a year and banned him from entering the US for five years.

It makes me sad to realize that more and more Canadians tend to be reluctant to visit the US, either due to their own negative experiences or those of somebody they know. That said, we do see a lot of B.C. plates in Washington State mall parking lots, what with that $1.04 Loonie.

There are two sides to almost every story and if I see the other I'll post it here. In the meantime, read the account for yourself in the Vancouver Sun, one of Canada's larger-circulation newspapers:

Five-year ban prompts man to sell U.S. home

A North Vancouver man is in shock after being banned last month from entering the U.S. for five years after being hassled by a U.S. border guard in Point Roberts.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=d4cd7acc-c01a-47bf-8cae-ccbd06ff11d4&k=84344&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+canwest%2FF262+%28Vancouver+S un+-+WestCoast+News%29

We crossed went over to Point Roberts once during a stay in the area. My geography geek husband thought it was cool. We literally drove around the customs shack and came out the other side. The border guard grilled us for about 15 minutes on our "intentions". She was furious that we considered it "funny". Total humorless b!tch.

Every US border guard has the authority/power to ban any non-US individual from entering the US for 5 years. To the best of my knowledge there is NO appeal.

Since there is no appeal process, this places huge amounts of petty power in the hands of every border guard - the ONLY wise way to cross the border is as a groveling, submissive, supplicant.

Wow- what a d!ck!

We crossed went over to Point Roberts once during a stay in the area. My geography geek husband thought it was cool. We literally drove around the customs shack and came out the other side. The border guard grilled us for about 15 minutes on our "intentions". She was furious that we considered it "funny". Total humorless b!tch.

It's funny how strict DHS is north of the border. But south of the border, it's much less strict. If that guy wants to come to the US, he should fly to Mexico and then sneak in. Funny how Napolitano can make the airport security so restrictive and she can't even secure the darn border. If some AQ terrorist wanted to sneak in, they could pose as some mexican person visiting the US legitimately and then overstay their visit...

Every US border guard has the authority/power to ban any non-US individual from entering the US for 5 years. To the best of my knowledge there is NO appeal.

Since there is no appeal process, this places huge amounts of petty power in the hands of every border guard - the ONLY wise way to cross the border is as a groveling, submissive, supplicant.

This is called "Expedited Removal" - there is no appeal or stay process during the removal, but someone subjected to ER can certainly appeal the decision and have the ban overturned.

As a matter of fact, the victim of this ER incident had a perfect case to appeal their ban - had they not gone to the media about it. Now their chances are not so good since so much attention has been drawn to their case.

Instead of selling the vacation home, they should have contacted an immigration lawyer and filed an appeal.

There are two sides to almost every story and if I see the other I'll post it here.

Not directly relevant, but I work with a guy in Oregon who likes to cruise around the San Jauns in his boat during the summer months. About two years ago, he and his wife docked in a Canadian port after customs had left for the night. They decided to grab dinner at a nearby restaurant and cleared customs in the morning. The border control person asked him if he had come ashore the previous night and he said, "yes". The result: 5 year ban from Canada... he's tried appealing this several times, but the powers that be won't budge. For some reason, his wife didn't get questioned or penalized at all.

And the US is wondering why their tourist numbers are going down? You can't enter the US as a foreigner without expecting grilling everywhere along your travel. At the check in counter for US based airlines you will be grilled, at the gate you may be grilled and going through extra security stuff. When you finally land in the US you are even more grilled. For people who needs a visa you will be grilled at the US embassy. And they even need your fingerprints at both the embassy and the border...

Wow- what a d!ck!

Yeah, this is getting so ridiculous!!! Why he banned from US for 5-years and he have absolutely no reasons why. He shouldn't not have any problems at all. He should get real passport & visa wavier. He does not have an approves to enter US. Shame on US border guard! :mad::mad:

What's the old saying, never tick off somebody who buys ink by the gallon? I'm assuming that people caught where his wife works in the article ;).

Mixed into valid border monitoring, you get elements of security charade and harassment (at the CANADIAN border no less!) at border entry.

The scrutiny applied to nearly 100% lawful people coming in across border stations is absolutely LUDICROUS when you consider the MILLIONS flooding in from the US southern borders illegally, undetected, and coming here for unascertainable purposes.

Yet another reason why the federal government has failed in its charter completely, and fully. They do things they are forbidden to do (strip search, unreasonable search at airports) and don't do things they are specifically called to do in the Constitution (protect the borders).

Since there is no appeal process, this places huge amounts of petty power in the hands of every border guard - the ONLY wise way to cross the border is as a groveling, submissive, supplicant.

INteresting that TSA would LOVE to have the same power.

First let me say that I'm a frequent border crosser. The US border guards don't have a monopoly on giving visitors a hard time. I've been hassled going in both directions; mostly from the Canadian guards since I'm a visitor to your country.

Now, let's look at the Pt Roberts guy's situation. He owns a beautiful cottage in Pt Roberts and RENTS an apartment in N Vancouver. He works at BC Ferries in Tsawwassen, a 20 minute commute at most from Pt Roberts. N Vancouver is nearly an hour commute in the best of traffic.


Makes me wonder who he knows in N Vancouver that drew up the rental agreement.

He says he goes to Pt Roberts several times a week to mow the lawn and water the flowers. Hello??? That might work in the summer but grass and flowers don't need much attention in the winter in this climate.

He's driving his wife's car on their anniversary headed to Pt Roberts so he doesn't have the proper documentation. How did his wife get there? Spend another night maybe? It certainly sounds like they spend more time at their Pt Roberts "home" than in their N Vancouver apartment.

None of us know what actually went on. Border guards are trained to recognize abuse. My feeling is that this guy gave enough grief to the guard that he pulled rank.

BTW, a visitor can stay in the US (or Canada) for a TOTAL of 183 days a calendar year; NOT 183 consecutive days with the clock starting over at each visit, as he says in the "Sun" article. Does he really know the rules

There are lots of holes in this guys story. Unfortunately, he makes it sound as though the US is being unneighborly.

When he sells his Pt Roberts house, there are some beautiful homes near Tsawwassen. I wish him luck.

...BTW, a visitor can stay in the US (or Canada) for a TOTAL of 183 days a calendar year; NOT 183 consecutive days with the clock starting over at each visit, as he says in the "Sun" article. Does he really know the rules ....

Actually, this incorrect. A Canadian citizen may spend up to 180 days in the US without any status (stamps) or extensions, however they can apply to re-enter or extend the stay if they can prove sufficient resources to remain in the US without employment or assistance and can show they still have a permanent residence in Canada to return to.

That part is easy - the problem is when you spend more than 183 days in the US, you become a resident for tax purposes and you lose health benefits in Canada, essentially entering a no-man's land of trouble.

Since he spent his 'days' in Canada working, but only crossed most of the time to 'sleep' at Pt Roberts, this case is likely more complicated than it appears on its face....he lived and worked in Canada, but slept more often than the authorities were comfortable with in Pt Roberts.

Although the media attention is going to make things difficult, a knowledgable and competent immigration attorney can fix the US problem - but he might have other problems come of it, including the possibility of owing taxes on his Canadian income.

Personally, there should be a simple visa or waiver system for Canadian and Mexican citizens who want to own property/reside/spend money in the US, but return to their home country each day to work - they contribute to the US economy, but take nothing from it, so what's the big problem?

I guess Pt Roberts will be better off with yet another piece of property sitting on the market waiting for a buyer and two fewer pesky Canadians spending money there :rolleyes:

Thanks for the clarrification. Yes, I know about the extensions and tax implications but didn't want to get into that.

You're right, it would be nice if one could "live" and work in one country and sleep in the other. It is good for the Sleep Country's" (no pun intended) economy. It seems so far sighted not to allow that. I'm in a bi-national relationship and that has caused us much grief. Not being of the opposite sex variety our relationship is not recognized by MY government. Hopefully that will change, too.

Getting back to the subject at hand, I don't think the Pt Roberts guy is a innocent as the article portrays. After all, his wife does work for the "Sun." They are fighting fire with fire. I think he's burned his bridges.

This is called "Expedited Removal" - there is no appeal or stay process during the removal, but someone subjected to ER can certainly appeal the decision and have the ban overturned.

As a matter of fact, the victim of this ER incident had a perfect case to appeal their ban - had they not gone to the media about it. Now their chances are not so good since so much attention has been drawn to their case.

Instead of selling the vacation home, they should have contacted an immigration lawyer and filed an appeal.

There is no appeal of an Expedited Removal not during the process and not after the process is complete except in the following circumstances:

1. The alien claims asylum during the Expedited Removal process.

2. The alien is a Lawful Permanent Resident ( has a green card) or the alien has been admitted to the United States as a refugee (sec 207) or an asylee (sec208).


INA: ACT 235 - INSPECTION BY IMMIGRATION OFFICERS; EXPEDITED REMOVAL OF INADMISSIBLE ARRIVING ALIENS; REFERRAL FOR HEARING



Sec. 235. 1/ (a) Inspection.-

(1) Aliens treated as applicants for admission.-An alien present in the United States who has not been admitted, or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this Act an applicant for admission.

(2) Stowaways.-An arriving alien who is a stowaway is not eligible to apply for admission or to be admitted and shall be ordered removed upon inspection by an immigration officer. Upon such inspection if the alien indicates an intention to apply for asylum under section 208 or a fear of persecution, the officer shall refer the alien for an interview under subsection (b)(1)(B). A stowaway may apply for asylum only if the stowaway is found to have a credible fear of persecution under subsection (b)(1)(B). In no case may a stowaway be considered an applicant for admission or eligible for a hearing under section 240.

(3) Inspection.-All aliens (including alien crewmen) who are applicants for admission or otherwise seeking admission or readmission to or transit through the United States shall be inspected by immigration officers.

(4) Withdrawal of application for admission.-An alien applying for admission may, in the discretion of the Attorney General and at any time, be permitted to withdraw the application for admission and depart immediately from the United States.

(5) Statements.-An applicant for admission may be required to state under oath any information sought by an immigration officer regarding the purposes and intentions of the applicant in seeking admission to the United States, including the applicant's intended length of stay and whether the applicant intends to remain permanently or become a United States citizen, and whether the applicant is inadmissible.


(b) 2/ Inspection of Applicants for Admission.-

(1) Inspection of aliens arriving in the United States and certain other aliens who have not been admitted or paroled.-

(A) Screening.-

(i) In general.-If an immigration officer determines that an alien (other than an alien described in subparagraph (F)) who is arriving in the United States or is described in clause (iii) is inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C) or 212(a)(7), the officer shall order the alien removed from the United States without further hearing or review unless the alien indicates either an intention to apply for asylum under section 208 or a fear of persecution.

(ii) Claims for asylum.-If an immigration officer determines that an alien (other than an alien described in subparagraph (F)) who is arriving in the United States or is described in clause (iii) is inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C) or 212(a)(7) and the alien indicates either an intention to apply for asylum under section 208 or a fear of persecution, the officer shall refer the alien for an interview by an asylum officer under subparagraph (B).

(iii) Application to certain other aliens.-

(I) In general.-The Attorney General may apply clauses (i) and (ii) of this subparagraph to any or all aliens described in subclause (II) as designated by the Attorney General. Such designation shall be in the sole and unreviewable discretion of the Attorney General and may be modified at any time.

(II) Aliens described.-An alien described in this clause is an alien who is not described in subparagraph (F), who has not been admitted or paroled into the United States, and who has not affirmatively shown, to the satisfaction of an immigration officer, that the alien has been physically present in the United States continuously for the 2- year period immediately prior to the date of the determination of inadmissibility under this subparagraph.

(B) Asylum interviews.-

(i) Conduct by asylum officers.-An asylum officer shall conduct interviews of aliens referred under subparagraph (A)(ii), either at a port of entry or at such other place designated by the Attorney General.

(ii) Referral of certain aliens.-If the officer determines at the time of the interview that an alien has a credible fear of persecution (within the meaning of clause (v)), the alien shall be detained for further consideration of the application for asylum.

(iii) Removal without further review if no credible fear of persecution.-

(I) In general.-Subject to subclause (III), if the officer determines that an alien does not have a credible fear of persecution, the officer shall order the alien removed from the United States without further hearing or review.

(II) Record of determination.-The officer shall prepare a written record of a determination under subclause (I). Such record shall include a summary of the material facts as stated by the applicant, such additional facts (if any) relied upon by the officer, and the officer's analysis of why, in light of such facts, the alien has not established a credible fear of persecution. A copy of the officer's interview notes shall be attached to the written summary.

(III) Review of determination.-The Attorney General shall provide by regulation and upon the alien's request for prompt review by an immigration judge of a determination under subclause (I) that the alien does not have a credible fear of persecution. Such review shall include an opportunity for the alien to be heard and questioned by the immigration judge, either in person or by telephonic or video connection. Review shall be concluded as expeditiously as possible, to the maximum extent practicable within 24 hours, but in no case later than 7 days after the date of the determination under subclause (I).


(IV) Mandatory Detention.-Any alien subject to the procedures under this clause shall be detained pending a final determination of credible fear of persecution and, if found not to have such a fear, until removed.

(iv) Information about interviews.-The Attorney General shall provide information concerning the asylum interview described in this subparagraph to aliens who may be eligible. An alien who is eligible for such interview may consult with a person or persons of the alien's choosing prior to the interview or any review thereof, according to regulations prescribed by the Attorney General. Such consultation shall be at no expense to the Government and shall not unreasonably delay the process.

(v) Credible fear of persecution defined.-For purposes of this subparagraph, the term "credible fear of persecution" means that there is a significant possibility, taking into account the credibility of the statements made by the alien in support of the alien's claim and such other facts as are known to the officer, that the alien could establish eligibility for asylum under section 208.


(C) Limitation on administrative review.-Except as provided in subparagraph (B)(iii)(III), a removal order entered in accordance with subparagraph (A)(i) or (B)(iii)(I) is not subject to administrative appeal, except that the Attorney General shall provide by regulation for prompt review of such an order under subparagraph (A)(i) against an alien who claims under oath, or as permitted under penalty of perjury under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, after having been warned of the penalties for falsely making such claim under such conditions, to have been lawfully admitted for permanent residence, to have been admitted as a refugee under section 207, or to have been granted asylum under section 208.
(D) Limit on collateral attacks.-In any action brought against an alien under section 275(a) or section 276, the court shall not have jurisdiction to hear any claim attacking the validity of an order of removal entered under subparagraph (A)(i) or (B)(iii).

(E) Asylum officer defined.-As used in this paragraph, the term "asylum officer" means an immigration officer who-

(i) has had professional training in country conditions, asylum law, and interview techniques comparable to that provided to full-time adjudicators of applications under section 208, and

(ii) is supervised by an officer who meets the condition described in clause (i) and has had substantial experience adjudicating asylum applications.

(F) Exception.-Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an alien who is a native or citizen of a country in the Western Hemisphere with whose government the United States does not have full diplomatic relations and who arrives by aircraft at a port of entry.

(G) 3/ COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS- Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to authorize or require any person described in section 208(e) to be permitted to apply for asylum under section 208 at any time before January 1, 2014.

The person in this news article was ordered removed and given a 5 year bar. The order of removal can not be appealed or overturned because the subject was not a Lawful Permanent Resident, a Refugee, Asylee nor did he claim asylum during the process. The only recourse the subject has to enter the United States during the time period that he is barred would be to request and obtain permission from the Attorney General to reapply during the time period. I have never seen this successfully done. Even if granted the removal itself would not be reversed or overturned and could be re-instated at anytime. The subject would also have to have a waiver for the initial ground of inadmissibility. The most I would think that he could get is paroled not admitted to the United States for a short period of time to resolve any personal issues such as the sale of property.

FB

Getting back to the subject at hand, I don't think the Pt Roberts guy is a innocent as the article portrays. After all, his wife does work for the "Sun." They are fighting fire with fire. I think he's burned his bridges.

You raised valid points in your first post. What I do understand, living near a border town on the US side with friends and relatives on both sides of the World's Longest Formerly-Undefended Border, is that there's a lot of angst, anxiety, and animosity involved in crossing the borders. Given the large number of border crossings, some of that is bound to occur.

Still, Canadian relatives entering the US on their way to fly to HNL were asked aggressively, "Why don't you take a vacation in your own country?" American relatives going to visit friends in Canada have been asked, "Why would you have a Canadian friend?" A young Canadian relative moving some modest household possessions into the US where he is both studying and teaching (all with the proper visa), was recently reprimanded and threatened with non-entry for writing "cutlery" on his list of possessions rather than listing the number of knives, forks, and spoons. :eek: He's experienced previous hassles despite his NEXUS pass and does everything he can to follow the rules. I could go on...

I wonder if this person went to the paper only after his American immigration lawyer advised him he couldn't do a thing for him. @:-)

Oh, and welcome to FT! ^


The person in this news article was ordered removed and given a 5 year bar. The order of removal can not be appealed or overturned because the subject was not a Lawful Permanent Resident, a Refugee, Asylee nor did he claim asylum during the process. The only recourse the subject has to enter the United States during the time period that he is barred would be to request and obtain permission from the Attorney General to reapply during the time period. I have never seen this successfully done...

A couple of years ago, a number of Americans and Canadians in the SEA-YVR travel corridor complained about the lack of opportunity to appeal when their NEXUS passes had been revoked, sometimes for apparently trivial reasons.

People in both countries have the perception, rightly or wrongly, that convicted criminals enjoy more rights of appeal than they do when dealing with such border issues. What you outline bestows an immense amount of authority on individual "border guards."

There is no appeal of an Expedited Removal not during the process and not after the process is complete except in the following circumstances:...

That's not what my research indicated from multiple sources - you cannot appeal an ER while it's in progress, but after you've been removed, you can appeal the ban period and get permission to re-enter.

That's not what my research indicated from multiple sources - you cannot appeal an ER while it's in progress, but after you've been removed, you can appeal the ban period and get permission to re-enter.

One US immigration lawyer opines on her website as follows:

Can I Appeal an Order of Expedited Removal?

The short answer is no – orders of expedited removal are not reviewable by any judge or court. There is no appeal process for such orders.

It is possible, however, to submit a request for review to CBP directly, which is what our office has done in situations where we have determined that the expedited removal order was improperly issued. In such situations – where the immigration laws were improperly applied by the CBP officials at the POE – review by additional supervisory CBP officials has resulted in the order of expedited removal being vacated as if it was never issued.

http://www.borderimmigrationlawyer.com/expedited-removal/

Actually, this incorrect. A Canadian citizen may spend up to 180 days in the US without any status (stamps) or extensions, however they can apply to re-enter or extend the stay if they can prove sufficient resources to remain in the US without employment or assistance and can show they still have a permanent residence in Canada to return to.

That part is easy - the problem is when you spend more than 183 days in the US, you become a resident for tax purposes and you lose health benefits in Canada, essentially entering a no-man's land of trouble.

Since he spent his 'days' in Canada working, but only crossed most of the time to 'sleep' at Pt Roberts, this case is likely more complicated than it appears on its face....he lived and worked in Canada, but slept more often than the authorities were comfortable with in Pt Roberts.

Although the media attention is going to make things difficult, a knowledgable and competent immigration attorney can fix the US problem - but he might have other problems come of it, including the possibility of owing taxes on his Canadian income.

Personally, there should be a simple visa or waiver system for Canadian and Mexican citizens who want to own property/reside/spend money in the US, but return to their home country each day to work - they contribute to the US economy, but take nothing from it, so what's the big problem?

I guess Pt Roberts will be better off with yet another piece of property sitting on the market waiting for a buyer and two fewer pesky Canadians spending money there :rolleyes:

Actually, your first paragraph is incorrect. A Canadian admitted to the United States does have status. A Canadian is admitted to the United States as if the Canadian has a B1/B2 Visa. However, the Canadian is not required to have the visa in their passport. The Canadian cannot for example spend 179 days in the United States go back to Canada for two weeks then re-enter the United States for another 179 days and repeat the process for say 5 years. In that example it doesn't matter if they have residence in Canada or not. They have established a pattern of living in the United States.

It appears that this may have been the person in the articles problem. You are also correct in your assessment that it is more complicated and is more to it than the article reports.

Personally, there should be a simple visa or waiver system for Canadian and Mexican citizens who want to own property/reside/spend money in the US, but return to their home country each day to work - they contribute to the US economy, but take nothing from it, so what's the big problem?

As for this it is a called a Permanent Resident card. I will concede it is not simple but there is a process for as you put "owning property/reside/spend money in the US, but return to their home country each day to work" (sounds like living in the US to me)

FB

You raised valid points in your first post. What I do understand, living near a border town on the US side with friends and relatives on both sides of the World's Longest Formerly-Undefended Border, is that there's a lot of angst, anxiety, and animosity involved in crossing the borders. Given the large number of border crossings, some of that is bound to occur.

Still, Canadian relatives entering the US on their way to fly to HNL were asked aggressively, "Why don't you take a vacation in your own country?" American relatives going to visit friends in Canada have been asked, "Why would you have a Canadian friend?" A young Canadian relative moving some modest household possessions into the US where he is both studying and teaching (all with the proper visa), was recently reprimanded and threatened with non-entry for writing "cutlery" on his list of possessions rather than listing the number of knives, forks, and spoons. :eek: He's experienced previous hassles despite his NEXUS pass and does everything he can to follow the rules. I could go on...

I wonder if this person went to the paper only after his American immigration lawyer advised him he couldn't do a thing for him. @:-)

Oh, and welcome to FT! ^



A couple of years ago, a number of Americans and Canadians in the SEA-YVR travel corridor complained about the lack of opportunity to appeal when their NEXUS passes had been revoked, sometimes for apparently trivial reasons.

People in both countries have the perception, rightly or wrongly, that convicted criminals enjoy more rights of appeal than they do when dealing with such border issues. What you outline bestows an immense amount of authority on individual "border guards."

The comments that you have attributed to CBP Officers are inappropriate except for the Canadian friend one. That one depends of the context of the question and I am betting it could have been phrased differently in any case. Was anything done to rectify the situation? Was a supervisor informed?

The authority for an Expedited Removal does not rest on the CBP officer alone. An Expedited Removal Order must be approved by the officer's immediate supervisor and the second line supervisor. It is not something that is taken lightly.

FB

That's not what my research indicated from multiple sources - you cannot appeal an ER while it's in progress, but after you've been removed, you can appeal the ban period and get permission to re-enter.

I would be interested in knowing what your sources were. I have posted the relevant sections of law directly from the INA. I even posted that you can get request permission to enter the United States during the ban period from the US Attorney General. However, this is not the same as an appeal nor is it overturning the decision. Even if the permission is granted that Removal Order still stands, is still on the person’s record and most importantly can be re-instated at any time. I will also say again that it would be exceedingly rare for that permission to be granted. I have not seen it in thirteen and half years though I have heard third and fourth hand of someone seeing one.

I understand that you probably don't see much difference in the being granted permission to enter during the ban period and being able to appeal the Removal Order. However, the legal difference is huge. If for instance a person was processed as an Expedited Removal, received permission to enter the United States during the ban period that person would still have a Removal Order. Now that same person has another immigration issue down the road and finds themselves at the receiving end of another removal order the ban would now be 20 years. The person depending upon circumstances could also be subject to criminal charges. This is because that initial removal order is still there.

FB

I know this has been asked before, but, having worked off and on in Canada since the late '60's and have a lot of friends up there, when exactly did we decide they are our enemies? At the rate we are going, why don't we declare war on them and get it over with!

The comments that you have attributed to CBP Officers are inappropriate except for the Canadian friend one. That one depends of the context of the question and I am betting it could have been phrased differently in any case. Was anything done to rectify the situation? Was a supervisor informed?

I just offered two offhand examples from the personal experiences of people I know. I'm also well aware that there are often underlying reasons for strange or even stupid-sounding questions. I asked for advice about another relative's experience here (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/canada/951845-unpleasant-experience-entering-u-s-young-relative-any-suggestions.html). The general consensus was to let it be. What is the upside? The fact that border authorities possess great power tends to discourage people from complaining formally about a lack of civility or even downright rudeness. Instead, they complain to each other, or to their friends and relatives who live across the border.

The authority for an Expedited Removal does not rest on the CBP officer alone. An Expedited Removal Order must be approved by the officer's immediate supervisor and the second line supervisor. It is not something that is taken lightly.

Thanks. That's somewhat reassuring. I'll certain follow up here if I run across further details about the cottage-owner's banishment.

One US immigration lawyer opines on her website as follows:

Can I Appeal an Order of Expedited Removal?

The short answer is no – orders of expedited removal are not reviewable by any judge or court. There is no appeal process for such orders.

It is possible, however, to submit a request for review to CBP directly, which is what our office has done in situations where we have determined that the expedited removal order was improperly issued. In such situations – where the immigration laws were improperly applied by the CBP officials at the POE – review by additional supervisory CBP officials has resulted in the order of expedited removal being vacated as if it was never issued.

http://www.borderimmigrationlawyer.com/expedited-removal/

This is rare as well but I have at least seen this attempted on two occasions. One was successful and one was not. It is not a formal process like the lawyer's website makes it out to be. It is just the lawyer’s office calling the Port Director of the port of entry and asking that the circumstances surrounding the Removal Order be looked at by the Port Director. The lawyer can submit documentation if the lawyer wishes to. The important thing to realize is that there is nothing compelling the Port Director to even talk to that lawyer. There is no section of law or CFR that addresses reversing an Expedited Removal order. What happens in these cases is that the paperwork is just torn up and computer databases are updated. Like I said this is rare because in most cases it was the Port Director that approved the Expedited Removal order in the first place as ER orders must be approved by second line supervisors which in most cases except for very large ports is the Port Director.

FB

I just offered two offhand examples from the personal experiences of people I know. I'm also well aware that there are often underlying reasons for strange or even stupid-sounding questions. I asked for advice about another relative's experience here (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/canada/951845-unpleasant-experience-entering-u-s-young-relative-any-suggestions.html). The general consensus was to let it be. What is the upside? The fact that border authorities possess great power tends to discourage people from complaining formally about a lack of civility or even downright rudeness. Instead, they complain to each other, or to their friends and relatives who live across the border.



Thanks. That's somewhat reassuring. I'll certain follow up here if I run across further details about the cottage-owner's banishment.

Supervision is interested in hearing when things do not go well. Management can not address problems they don't hear about. The statements you posted certainly would be something that I would want to know about.

FB

Me is afraid to do anything to tick off TSA..

With the soaring loonie, and two little kids, we'll want to travel frequently south of the border.

Me is afraid to do anything to tick off TSA..

With the soaring loonie, and two little kids, we'll want to travel frequently south of the border.

Ticking off the TSA has nothing to do with your visitor status or ability to enter the country.

I know this has been asked before, but, having worked off and on in Canada since the late '60's and have a lot of friends up there, when exactly did we decide they are our enemies? At the rate we are going, why don't we declare war on them and get it over with!

I'm pretty sure it has something to do with Cuba. :D

Canada should get on with annexing a Caribbean island so that Canadians can forgo vacationing in the USA.

Ticking off the TSA has nothing to do with your visitor status or ability to enter the country.

They could be sneaks into country illegally. Border patrols will have stepped it up to checks on immigrations status who being in country illegally.

Ah, the good 'ole days.

BP: Good afternoon, sir! Where are you from?

Me: North Carolina.

BP: You're a Tarheel fan?

Me: Of course! :D

BP: Where you headed?

Me: Just out for ride, checking out some of the vineyards in the area. (this was upstate NY)

BP: Enjoy your afternoon.

Everyone was friendly, both sides of the border, and usually no hassles. Come and go with no suspicions or nasty remarks.

Hey, I thought we were neighbours! I guess not anymore.

It's easier taking my motorcycle across the border from Viet Nam to Cambodia than crossing into Canada or vice versa to visit a friend or go shopping.

...Hey, I thought we were neighbours! I guess not anymore.

It's easier taking my motorcycle across the border from Viet Nam to Cambodia than crossing into Canada or vice versa to visit a friend or go shopping.

Nastiness from my own country's immigration people is what drove me to Nexus...I'm so happy I don't have to talk to any of them anymore.

Updated: The Point Roberts Washington community newspaper runs an article - What does it take to get kicked out of the States? (http://www.allpointbulletin.com/news/article.exm/2011-05-12_what_does_it_take_to_get_kicked_out_of_the_stat es_) - featuring comments by a CBP Public Information Officer consistent with the information provided up-thread by Firebug4. ^ I'm sure Canadian property owners on "The Point" will read it with interest.

Letter writers to the Vancouver Sun offer their own opinions here (http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Five+year+border+should+reversed/4769563/story.html) and here (http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/rights+under+assault+name+security/4777314/story.html). The second letter includes a claim that the cottage-owner may also end up on a US no-fly list that will forbid him from flying in US airspace to international destinations.

In summary, the fact that it's a "judgment call" by an individual officer with no right of appeal, albeit reviewed and approved by two senior officers, seems to be a major cause of the anxiety.

I consistently and legally traveled to Canada for brief jobs, 2-5 days at a time, 2-4 time per year, under a NAFTA section for business travelers. I made all requested disclosures and provided evidence that I indeed was allowed to enter under the NAFTA treaty.

That is until a single Canadian border agent decided that I could not enter under the NAFTA exemption. I was turned back at the border after being told to obtain a valid Labor Market Opinion. I did, I went back, bought a work permit and all was good.

The next time I entered Canada at a different port of entry, I was told by my employer that I did not need an LMO and to just tell the border agent and give them a copy of the request letter provided by the company. Not good. The border agent said that if the other agent required an LMO then he had to require one as well and sent me back home.

Since then I play the game. I apply for an LMO. It takes someone at Service Canada 4-6 weeks to do the research and approve it. I take the approved LMO to the border and after paying $150 CAD for a work permit, I get to enter Canada to work two days.

Technically, I am still exempt under NAFTA, but since I have a "record" that shows I was required that I get an approved LMO, then I will forevermore have to get one. And I will pay $150 every time I work in Canada. It is not the "friendly" border crossing it once was, at least for business visitors.

Not on topic, but I noticed that the CBSA treated me better when I was a GC holder. When I became the American citizen, it all went downhill. It is almost as if they believe that a GC holder would not be interested in staying illegally in Canada while an American citizen might be...

I will also say again that it would be exceedingly rare for that permission to be granted. I have not seen it in thirteen and half years though I have heard third and fourth hand of someone seeing one.

It is indeed rare but it happens. It used to require approval from both the AG's office stateside as well as an interview conducted by Head of Section at the Consular post. Presumably DHS have their finger in the pie as well now. The visa is also annotated with the relevant file numbers and a brief narrative of the specific purpose for which the visa is issued. These are usually either humanitarian cases (eg.family illness - especially if minor children are involved), legal cases (eg.witness in a trial) or business cases for which a Class A consular referral applies.

In most cases, it is easier to simply serve the 5 year ban as these waivers often take 7-8 years to process unless you know someone in the system to push the files through. They are more common for those slapped with longer duration or lifetime bans as a result, even though the underlying issues are often more serious in those cases.

One issue that is not properly addressed though is whether serving the 5 year ban "removes" the underlying grounds for inadmissability, or whether they can be used again. I've seen someone who served the 5 years following an ER, subsequently obtained a B1/B2 at the consular post and then was ER-ed again at the PoE this time with a LIFETIME ban on the flimsy grounds that his I-867 statement from the first PoE encounter had a line where he stated that he did not believe himself to be inadmissable and this was then ruled to be a "false statement" by virtue of the finding of inadmissability by the original INS officer and hence the second CBP officer used it as the grounds to ER the second time. The I-860 narrative was entirely circular in nature but the supervisor authorised the ER by telephone anyway. He has good grounds for a waiver to be granted by the AG's office but it will be a few years and a few thousand dollars in legal fees to get to that point.

There is a followup article in the Vancouver Sun describing some of the anecdotal accounts of Canadians claiming problems similar to this banished cottage-owner from among "dozens of people who contacted The Vancouver Sun this week after reading about Leah Shaffer, a North Vancouver man who owned a cottage in Point Roberts for 23 years."

It's a worthwhile read for those interested both in security and in Canada-US relations, including the following:

A U.S. Court of Appeals case known as Khan vs. Holder put it this way last year: “The troubling reality of the expedited removal procedure is that a CBP officer can create the ... charge by deciding to convert the person’s status from a non-immigrant with valid papers to an intending immigrant without the proper papers, and then that same officer, free from the risk of judicial oversight, can confirm his or her suspicions of the person’s intentions and find the person guilty of that charge.

“The entire process, from the initial decision to convert the person’s status to removal, can happen without any check on whether the person understood the proceedings, had an interpreter, or enjoyed any other safeguards. To say that this procedure is fraught with risk of arbitrary, mistaken, or discriminatory behaviour — suppose a particular CBP officer decides that enough visitors from Africa have already entered the U.S. — is not, however, to say that courts are free to disregard jurisdictional limitations.”

It's safe to say this article, or more precisely the picture it paints, will not foster positive cross border relationships, nor a positive view of the US. :( As matter of fact, it's somewhat horrifying.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Banished+border+Canadians+ensnared+customs+hassles +post/4782534/story.html#ixzz1MNFcLYPH

Not on topic, but I noticed that the CBSA treated me better when I was a GC holder. When I became the American citizen, it all went downhill. It is almost as if they believe that a GC holder would not be interested in staying illegally in Canada while an American citizen might be...

How do you become a GC holder?

Personally, I think the US/Canadian government should have a VIP type tier where entry/exit out of customs is simpler and faster.

How do you become a GC holder?
There are many ways to become a permanent resident of the USA: employment based, family based, extraordinary abilities, refuge/asylum, diversity visa lottery, amnesty, etc.

Personally, I think the US/Canadian government should have a VIP type tier where entry/exit out of customs is simpler and faster.
You mean something like Nexus and Global Entry? I fully agree.

Last October a friend convinced me to step inside the US again (various pleas and bribes!). I had a delighful entry at ORD.
Things, however, fell apart when we were in Maine and decided to visit Roosevelt Campbello 'International'(?) Park. The Canadian entry was ok, but as usual a little narky (as has always been my experience with entering Canada - is that just reserved for Australians?).
The problem began when we drove back into the US. We were delayed at least 2 hours by the most officious CBP agent I've ever encountered. There were the dumb questions - "When were you last in the US?" "Ummm, 3 hours ago" and there were a whole lot of questions about my job, running through all my credit cards. When he found that I had once studied at post-graduate level in the US he went into even more questions, thinking that somehow I was overstaying and working in the US, despite the clear evidence of the entrance stamp from ORD as well as other stamps in UK, Italy, Hong Kong, Solomon Islands, PNG showing that I have been elsewhere. He even didn't believe my itinerary to fly from BOS to LHR.
Eventually he made a few calls and let us through with a warning to me about seeking employment in the US - with all due respect, no thank you, not even tempted.
i didn't realise that the crossing at Lubec, Maine was such a hot bed of attempted entries by Australians wanting to work in the US.
My friend was very embarassed and realised that this was probably my last trip to the US for a loooong time. We had a good drink back in Bar Harbour!!

Last October a friend convinced me to step inside the US again (various pleas and bribes!). I had a delighful entry at ORD.
Things, however, fell apart when we were in Maine and decided to visit Roosevelt Campbello 'International'(?) Park. The Canadian entry was ok, but as usual a little narky (as has always been my experience with entering Canada - is that just reserved for Australians?).
The problem began when we drove back into the US. We were delayed at least 2 hours by the most officious CBP agent I've ever encountered. There were the dumb questions - "When were you last in the US?" "Ummm, 3 hours ago" and there were a whole lot of questions about my job, running through all my credit cards. When he found that I had once studied at post-graduate level in the US he went into even more questions, thinking that somehow I was overstaying and working in the US, despite the clear evidence of the entrance stamp from ORD as well as other stamps in UK, Italy, Hong Kong, Solomon Islands, PNG showing that I have been elsewhere. He even didn't believe my itinerary to fly from BOS to LHR.
Eventually he made a few calls and let us through with a warning to me about seeking employment in the US - with all due respect, no thank you, not even tempted.
i didn't realise that the crossing at Lubec, Maine was such a hot bed of attempted entries by Australians wanting to work in the US.
My friend was very embarassed and realised that this was probably my last trip to the US for a loooong time. We had a good drink back in Bar Harbour!!

That's the problem, you are Australian. If you had been Mexican not only would you have been waived right through, they would have made sure you had adequate food and water for your journey. :D

That's the problem, you are Australian. If you had been Mexican not only would you have been waived right through, they would have made sure you had adequate food and water for your journey. :D
I know it was a sarcastic comment, but I do believe that people making such remarks have never tried to enter the USA from Mexico at the border crossings - no matter how awful Canada-USA crossing process is, the one from Mexico is more strict and more unpleasant.

As for the inability of the federal government to prevent illegal crossings, it is due to inadequate border patrol staffing. It is simply impossible to control the Mexico-USA border with border patrol agents only - you need to bring in the national guard and actually allow them to shoot at the violators.

That's the problem, you are Australian. If you had been Mexican not only would you have been waived right through, they would have made sure you had adequate food and water for your journey. :D



Very funny :D

But I can hardly throw stones as one of the top rated shows here in Australia is Border Security (just look at some of the clips on Youtube) where various travellers have their sorry tales revealed to meet the tastes of the average bogan (see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogan)) viewer who like think that they are kept safe by security circuses. Though to be fair they do catch some people that I would prefer not to be let in the country. Most amusing are the lame excuses people try to use for bringing in clearly prohibited foods.

I also acknowledge what König has said, which I could believe but have no desire to test.

I know it was a sarcastic comment, but I do believe that people making such remarks have never tried to enter the USA from Mexico at the border crossings - no matter how awful Canada-USA crossing process is, the one from Mexico is more strict and more unpleasant.

As for the inability of the federal government to prevent illegal crossings, it is due to inadequate border patrol staffing. It is simply impossible to control the Mexico-USA border with border patrol agents only - you need to bring in the national guard and actually allow them to shoot at the violators.

Really? I've cross the Mexican border in Nogales several times in the past three years. Never had more than a question or two asked. Granted, this is a very busy border station, so maybe they don't have time to play games with every single person. I've heard that the slow Canadian crossing are the ones that are the worst. I guess boredom and too much free time for BP agent turns them nasty.

1) They are apparently rather picky about this at Pt. Roberts, because the Canadians who own most of the property there are gullible and easy targets to screw with.

2) Expedited removal needs to go away. Now. There are far too many bad apples in the CBP to allow for such unchecked power.

Really? I've cross the Mexican border in Nogales several times in the past three years. Never had more than a question or two asked. Granted, this is a very busy border station, so maybe they don't have time to play games with every single person. I've heard that the slow Canadian crossing are the ones that are the worst. I guess boredom and too much free time for BP agent turns them nasty.
They (CBP agents at remote outposts:)) have to show they are "busily" at work, otherwise their jobs may be eliminated. [3 agents employed full time might be cut to 2:p]

They (CBP agents at remote outposts:)) have to show they are "busily" at work, otherwise their jobs may be eliminated. [3 agents employed full time might be cut to 2:p]

But then they'd be in the same situation as the FAA's ATCs who might fall asleep on the job without coworkers to keep them awake and alert when A380s are treating RJs like bumper cars. Can't have the borders open to rogue tractor-trailers or gunboats just waiting for the officer to doze off.

We've removed a number of OT comments/hydrant-marking posts. There really is no excuse for making them and even less for responding to them. But then maybe it hasn't been clear to me until now what you all want out of Flyertalk. I thought I was here to help maintain civility and topicality because most of you value civility and topicality. :shrug:

Whether impervious to being warned/timed out or not just be aware that the future of the forum is now in your hands. Keep it open or actively contribute to its shutter -- it's all up to you folks.

---------
essxjay
TS/S moderator

I thought I was here to help maintain civility and topicality because most of you value civility and topicality. :shrug:


That's exactly what this infrequent poster comes here for...thanks for soldiering on. ^

A lot of Canadians own winter homes in Florida, how do they get past CBT without the threat of being denied entry every year.

Do they have any special papers or pre approval from the US Government so they can easily enter the U.S.

Mr. Elliott

A lot of Canadians own winter homes in Florida, how do they get past CBT without the threat of being denied entry every year.

Do they have any special papers or pre approval from the US Government so they can easily enter the U.S.

Mr. Elliott

I think the difference is the frequency of border crossings and the ultimate destination of the visitor. In some cases the inspector can, at their discretion, demand proof of resources (bank account balances, savings, etc) to determine if the visitor can support themselves for the duration of their stay.

My folks have crossed by car and by air, and have never been challenged on this - they just say "spending the winter in Florida until late April with our son" and that's always been good enough.

It probably also has to do with a younger person presenting themselves at the border frequently (higher perceived risk with employment) vs. a senior citizen, obviously past their working years, presenting themselves for a winter stay with every intention of returning home.

In my childhood, US Customs were a pleasant bunch who welcomed you into the US with a smile and usually no check of documents whatsoever. That's right. I was never asked for so much as a driver's license until I was into my 20's (I grew up near New York State in Ontario). I looked up to the US border guards as a result, they earned my respect. Over the last decade I have been subject to rudeness so many times for no reason whatsoever (I do have a NEXUS card but can't use it when I travel with my wife, who is a Japanese national with Canadian landed immigrant status) that I have nothing at all good to say about either the US CBP or the government that permits their excesses. Absolutely disgraceful. They've lost my respect. they need to start living up to their pledge to treat innocent travellers with respect and professionalism. They often don't. They treat legal immigrants (like my wife) even worse. There really needs to be an official investigation as they are single-handedly destroying the reputation of the US in Canada and elsewhere. I think the US government is either clueless or doesn't give a damn. One day, that may come back to bite them. Who is their largest trading partner and largest supplier of imported oil and other energy products? CANADA. That the US allows this kind of nonsense at the border is an indicator that it's lost its moral compass. Looks like the terrorists won. You know, back in the 1970's and 80's there was actually a lot more terrorism going on but we didn't have to live with the stupid resrictions that we do now. Planes were routinely hijacked. Life went on. Now we live in a nanny state where no one takes responsibility for themselves. Pathetic.

Furthermore, I have never been questioned when travelling or working in Asia, Europe or South America. Meanwhile, my next door neighbour, supposedly our greatest ally and friend, makes me feel like a criminal for daring to visit their country and actually spending money there, supporting their economy (which certainly needs the assist) in the process. I am polite, answer their (often idiotic) questions with a calm and pleasant demeanour, and yet still get the crappy, brusque treatment. Screw them. If I can at all avoid it when I have international travel I try to avoid flights which transit the US. I'm happy to spend my money elsewhere. My choice....and don't spout this nonsense about travel being a privledge not a right. It's a necessity in this day and age of global trade. Expeditie it, make it hassle free and let the money, people and goods flow. Everyone benefits. Learn from Europe for god's sakes. Learn from someone, anyone. Bueller, Bueller? Ferris?????? Anyone? Anyone?

I know this has been asked before, but, having worked off and on in Canada since the late '60's and have a lot of friends up there, when exactly did we decide they are our enemies? At the rate we are going, why don't we declare war on them and get it over with!

No oil, duh! That tar sands stuff is still too difficult to process. We'll let them work out the kinks at their expense, then roll in.

This is all so stupid. Pissing off all your friends while your economy is failing is a bad, bad move. Before too long, we could collapse, and no one will care.

In my childhood, US Customs were a pleasant bunch who welcomed you into the US with a smile and usually no check of documents whatsoever. That's right. I was never asked for so much as a driver's license until I was into my 20's (I grew up near New York State in Ontario). I looked up to the US border guards as a result. they earned my respect. Over the last decade I have been subject to rudeness so many times for no reason whatsoever (I do have a NEXUS card but can't use it when I travel with my wife, who is a Japanese national with Canadian landed immigrant status) that I have nothing at all good to say about either the US CBP or the government that permits their excesses. Absolutely disgraceful. They've lost my respect. they need to start living up to their pledge to treat innocent travellers with respect and professionalism. They often don't. They treat legal immigrants (like my wife) even worse. There really needs to be an official investigation as they are single-handedly destroying the reputation of the US in Canada. I think the US government is either clueless or doesn't give a damn. One day, that may come back to bite them. Who is their largest trading partner and largest supplier of imported oil and other energy products? CANADA.

As an American citizen, please let me apologize to you and your family for the treatment you've received at the hands of US government public servants. Those people who abuse their authority, for whatever reason, bring shame to the entire country. Those responsible, will be held accountable for their actions one day.

Furthermore, I have never been questioned when travelling or working in Asia, Europe or South America. Meanwhile, my next door neighbour, supposedly our greatest ally and friend, makes me feel like a criminal for daring to visit their country and actually spending money there, supporting their economy (which certainly needs the assist) in the process. I am polite, answer their (often idiotic) questions with a calm and pleasant demeanour, and yet still get the crappy, brusque treatment. Screw them. If I can at all avoid it when I have international travel I try to avoid flights which transit the US. I'm happy to spend my money elsewhere. My choice....and don't spout this nonsense about travel being a privledge not a right. It's a necessity in this day and age of global trade. Expeditie it, make it hassle free and let the money, people and goods flow. Everyone benefits. Learn from Europe for god's sakes. Learn from someone, anyone. Bueller, Bueller? Ferris?????? Anyone? Anyone?

Just go through the posts of some of the resident government employees and you will realize why this is happening and where it comes from. Apparently an almost schizophrenic sense of paranoia is now a requisite for employment with the DHS. All people are suspected terrorists or drug smugglers until determined to be otherwise. All people except other government employees are the potential enemies of the state. Welcome to Amerika 2011.

A 4 year old thread, but his is what I went through on a mileage run to Edmonton:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mileage-run-discussion/722163-canadian-customs-problems.html

Unfortunately, the Canadians are just as paranoid as the Americans. Maybe it is just retribution, but I think both sides of the border are crazy.

I know it was a sarcastic comment, but I do believe that people making such remarks have never tried to enter the USA from Mexico at the border crossings - no matter how awful Canada-USA crossing process is, the one from Mexico is more strict and more unpleasant.
Not in my experience at Juarez/El Paso.


Unfortunately, the Canadians are just as paranoid as the Americans. Maybe it is just retribution, but I think both sides of the border are crazy.

UK, Australian, and NZ border control people are the same as those of Canada and the USA.

A 4 year old thread, but his is what I went through on a mileage run to Edmonton:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mileage-run-discussion/722163-canadian-customs-problems.html

Unfortunately, the Canadians are just as paranoid as the Americans. Maybe it is just retribution, but I think both sides of the border are crazy.

Edmonton was a problem for me. I arrived at 12:30 a.m. and the lone immigration agent put me on the first flight back to the US. I was allowed to stay at the Airport Hampton Inn for three hours, at $180 CAD, and returned to the airport where I was led though ticketing, customs and immigration under armed guard.

The company that I was to work for, and assured me that my paperwork was in order, canceled the consulting job and stuck me with the $1200 in travel expenses. Plus I lost a week of consulting time that I possibly could have scheduled with another customer, a potential, but not an actual loss of $4000 income.

Since then I do not enter Canada to work without an approved LMO and I buy the work permit. It is cheap insurance.

No oil, duh! That tar sands stuff is still too difficult to process. We'll let them work out the kinks at their expense, then roll in.

This is all so stupid. Pissing off all your friends while your economy is failing is a bad, bad move. Before too long, we could collapse, and no one will care.

Its been better recent years American-Canadian relations.. I think with the tension of 9-11 and the border issues, we the Canadian citizens have gotten over the new passport requirements..

plus now our dollar is stronger than the US.. so everythings 30% cheaper to travel.

Regarding the Oil Sands (Americans like to call it tar sands), if the Obama Administration approves the new pipe line down to Texas, I think over 100,000 American jobs will be created to process the stuff. Did you know that much of the oil imported to the US come from countries that are anti-American.. Canada Oil Sands is the second largest reserve of oil in the world.. we're friendly, and we are a secure way of US getting oil..

Ancien Maestro said:

and we are a secure way of US getting oil..

and I wouldn't send one single barrel of oil to the US until folks at DHS and TSA got their heads out of their arses and starting treating people with respect and not like criminals.

Its been better recent years American-Canadian relations.. I think with the tension of 9-11 and the border issues, we the Canadian citizens have gotten over the new passport requirements..

plus now our dollar is stronger than the US.. so everythings 30% cheaper to travel.

Regarding the Oil Sands (Americans like to call it tar sands), if the Obama Administration approves the new pipe line down to Texas, I think over 100,000 American jobs will be created to process the stuff. Did you know that much of the oil imported to the US come from countries that are anti-American.. Canada Oil Sands is the second largest reserve of oil in the world.. we're friendly, and we are a secure way of US getting oil..

The problem with the oil sands - Canada, a previous leader in environmental stewardship, is destroying its environment and air quality in the mad dash to get that oil out....with little effort being made to figure out safer and cleaner ways to extract it.

Apparently even immigration lawyers are frustrated trying to gain information about such situations, let alone resolve them. Interestingly, the two accounts that are described in the second Vancouver Sun article I posted earlier involve, respectively, 68- and 69-year-old individuals who wouldn't seem to fit the profile of somebody trying to become an undocumented immigrant to the U.S.

Glenn Walsh, a 69-year-old Canadian businessman from Vancouver, suffered a similar border nightmare.

Walsh said he’s been turned away from the U.S. border four or five times over the last two years.

“Each time I cross the border, I have to go into the back room for two hours,” he said over the phone from his vacation home in Puerto Vallarta. “I go through an inquisition. Sometimes they turn me away, sometimes they don’t. There’s no rhyme or reason to it.”

Walsh said his problems began in 2009 when the harbour master in Blaine, where he moors his 53-foot power cruiser, phoned him in Mexico to say there was a problem with the bilge pump on his boat.

Walsh flew back to Vancouver and tried to cross the border late at night, planning to stay overnight on his boat and get the problem fixed in the morning. He was grilled about working in the U.S. and was refused entry at the Peace Arch crossing. No reason was given, he said, adding the border officer told him: “‘I ask the questions around here.’”

The worst part, Walsh said, was that the officer red-flagged his name on the computer. Now, every time he crosses the border he is questioned for hours by officers.

“It’s a huge inconvenience,” Walsh said. “Once, at the truck crossing, I was handcuffed and body-searched. I have gone through this inquisition at the Toronto, Los Angeles, Sea-Tac and Vancouver airports, and three of the land crossings into Washington.”

He has a U.S. lawyer, who is trying to get the flag removed.

“There’s no real appeal process,” he explained. “It’s kind of a blind tunnel. I don’t know where to turn ... The really disappointing thing is I spend a fair amount of time in Europe — it’s a lot easier than getting in the U.S.”

To avoid the border hassles, Walsh now moors his U.S.-registered boat in Campbell River, even though he’s still paying moorage in Blaine.

He and his wife used to spend a few weeks on the boat in Blaine, getting it ready for summer, then would go cruising up B.C.’s coast for several months.

Walsh said he owns more than a dozen companies in B.C. and Alberta and has major investments in three corporations in Arizona, Alaska and Washington. He used to go to Seattle for business meetings. Now, he asks his Seattle associates to come to Vancouver, so he doesn’t have to face crossing the border.

“We’ve pumped millions of dollars into [the Washington venture] and I can’t get over the border and see where my money has gone,” Walsh said. “I’m investing in their country and they won’t let me in.”

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Banished+border+Canadians+ensnared+customs+hassles +post/4782534/story.html#ixzz1MgkYtVX2

Absolutely disgusting behaviour the way some perfectly innocent people are treated. They invest in this country giving us needed capital and jobs and then are treated like lepers and criminals. Got a vacation home in the US? Might as well forget it. Why go through the hassle, why not invest in a more friendly place?

As a citizen who is thouroughly disgusted by the way our visitors, neighbors, and friends are treated, I say......forget the US. Take your money, your investments, your job-creation, your brainpower and go elsewhere. We don't deserve it.

To give a little perspective on how far we have come, let me talk about growing up in New York State in the 1960's. We would go to Canada every summer for a week and would cross at Niagara Falls or into Montreal. We were welcomed not only at the crossing but were generally treated very well and people were happy to see us. We in turn acted like guest and were always very polite and friendly. I enjoyed being there.

Upon returning to the US my parents would show their paper New York State license (No picture I.D.!) and we kids (I was 10-15) just had to say our name and where we were born. Possibly one or two questions, sometimes a quick look in the trunk. A smile and asked to please drive safely. ^

From today's Vancouver Sun's Editorial: Cross Border Shoppers aren't terrorists!
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Cross+border+shoppers+terrorists/4801879/story.html

"When overzealous border guards grill, humiliate and intimidate Canadians, and exercise absolute power to deny entry to law-abiding citizens with proper travel documents, governments need to act."

I don't know any frequent travellers from Canada who don't have some bad story about US Customs - and we all have NEXUS cards!! Unbelievable. Somebody at US CBP is really blind to this situation or doesn't give a damn. In either case, they should be fired for negligence. That's right, I said it. FIRED.

Maybe someone in the US government will start waking up to the fact that Canadians are getting really fed-up with their atrocious treatment at the US border. Smarten up US CBP! Stop harassing innocent travellers and giving the US a bad name in Canada and abroad. We're fed up with your rudeness and wild-west mentality. Start following your own professional conduct policies that you post so prominently at border crossings and airports and then completely ignore. Start hiring professionals or at least fire the unprofessional ones who make you all look bad. You are the first impression foreign guests have of your country, don't you realize that????!

A similar thing happened to my cousin. He was coming here to go to trade school and live here a little while with me. He was stopped at the border and told to go home and nevert come back. why? he told them he was coming to go to school, but didn't have a transcript of his classes!?! I am sure it also had to do with his last name, which is based on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's country name.

That was a year or two after 9/11 and he has been afraid (yes, afraid) to come back since. Seeing how we are losing rights, left and right (excuse the pun) I really don't blame him. I even toyed with the idea for a while of expatriating to Canada.

I've been saying it since the patriot act was passed. The terrorists did indeed win.

Got a vacation home in the US? Might as well forget it. Why go through the hassle, why not invest in a more friendly place?


A few years ago, my wife and I looked at buying a vacation place in Arizona. But the hassle and hostility we experienced at the hands of the CPB and TSA on that trip quickly put that notion out of our minds.
We bought a place in the Bahamas, and we not longer travel to the US.
But hey, you're safe from us.
(we do miss Key West and NOLA, though)

To give a little perspective on how far we have come, let me talk about growing up in New York State in the 1960's. We would go to Canada every summer for a week and would cross at Niagara Falls or into Montreal. We were welcomed not only at the crossing but were generally treated very well and people were happy to see us. We in turn acted like guest and were always very polite and friendly. I enjoyed being there.

Upon returning to the US my parents would show their paper New York State license (No picture I.D.!) and we kids (I was 10-15) just had to say our name and where we were born. Possibly one or two questions, sometimes a quick look in the trunk. A smile and asked to please drive safely. ^

No need to go all the way back to the 60's, it was the same way back in the mid 90's when I lived in the Buffalo area. Never needed to show any ID at all, just state our nationality and where we were going on our way in and where we had been on the way back out.

No need to go all the way back to the 60's, it was the same way back in the mid 90's when I lived in the Buffalo area. Never needed to show any ID at all, just state our nationality and where we were going on our way in and where we had been on the way back out.

As late as 2002, I was able to drive from NY to Canada with just a driver's license and the where are you going/why/for how long questions. They rarely even glanced in the car.

My friends from southern BC used to drive to Washington for LUNCH when they were in high school. Why can' we all just open the boarder and get along, sheesh.

Over the last decade I have been subject to rudeness so many times for no reason whatsoever (I do have a NEXUS card but can't use it when I travel with my wife, who is a Japanese national with Canadian landed immigrant status) that I have nothing at all good to say about either the US CBP or the government that permits their excesses.

Your wife is eligible for a NEXUS card. Permanent Residents of Canada (what used to be called Landed Immigrants) are eligible for NEXUS.


UK, Australian, and NZ border control people are the same as those of Canada and the USA.

I disagree. UK, Australia and Canada (no NZ experience) have worse than average border guards, but nothing like the US.

As late as 2002, I was able to drive from NY to Canada with just a driver's license and the where are you going/why/for how long questions. They rarely even glanced in the car.

The Canadians still aren't that bad, especially for NEXUS.

From today's Vancouver Sun's Editorial: Cross Border Shoppers aren't terrorists!
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Cross+border+shoppers+terrorists/4801879/story.html

"When overzealous border guards grill, humiliate and intimidate Canadians, and exercise absolute power to deny entry to law-abiding citizens with proper travel documents, governments need to act."

I don't know any frequent travellers from Canada who don't have some bad story about US Customs - and we all have NEXUS cards!! Unbelievable. Somebody at US CBP is really blind to this situation or doesn't give a damn. In either case, they should be fired for negligence. That's right, I said it. FIRED.

Maybe someone in the US government will start waking up to the fact that Canadians are getting really fed-up with their atrocious treatment at the US border. Smarten up US CBP! Stop harassing innocent travellers and giving the US a bad name in Canada and abroad. We're fed up with your rudeness and wild-west mentality. Start following your own professional conduct policies that you post so prominently at border crossings and airports and then completely ignore. Start hiring professionals or at least fire the unprofessional ones who make you all look bad. You are the first impression foreign guests have of your country, don't you realize that????!


Well, I'm an American with a NEXUS (and CANPASS before that) and I have absolutely no use for US CBP at the BC/US land crossings either.

When I enter Canada, I slow down, cruise through. Never been stopped or questioned yet. When I return...even though I'm in the NEXUS lane, it's two separate camera shots before I get to the agent, and even then I am always stopped and asked questions.

I do know the difference between serious demeanor professionalism and hostile aggression, and the US agents I have encountered at the Canadian border are generally the latter.

The problem with the oil sands - Canada, a previous leader in environmental stewardship, is destroying its environment and air quality in the mad dash to get that oil out....with little effort being made to figure out safer and cleaner ways to extract it.

Yes that is the perception..

The Oil Sands are slated to have a trillion dollars in investment over the next 20 years poured into the development of efficiency and technology.

The Oil Sands, yes is a different product, and requires a different process. Advancements are continually made to process the product efficiently. Alberta has offered the US an opportunity to extract oil sands by building a pipeline down to Texas. Raw unprocessed Oil Sands is sent down the pipeline for Americans to process.. Thus Americans has an opportunity to create efficient processes in the Oil Sands extraction.. and create American jobs doing so.

The following excerpt from that Vancouver Sun editorial (http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Cross+border+shoppers+terrorists/4801879/story.html) probably reflects the feelings of a lot of foreigners, who are amused or insulted to varying degrees by the implied accusation that everybody can hardly wait to slip over the border in order to become an American.

There are enough folks who really do not to further alienate the folks who really don't:

This state of affairs is unacceptable. Canadians are not trying to sneak into the U.S. in search of a better life as an illegal alien. Life is pretty good here.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Cross+border+shoppers+terrorists/4801879/story.html#ixzz1MldMSeSY

I recollect reading (several years ago) of a home (I think it was in Maine), that had the us/can boarder running through it--in effect when they went from the bedroom to the living room they would have to clear the bp (us or can).:D
Does anyone remember this? [If this were as per OP, he might not be able to use the toilet for 5 years.:D]

addendum to my post, I found the following doing a google search: http://sanfransysco.motorcycleschool.com/pub/trips/wanderlust04/boundaryhouse.jpg

I recollect reading (several years ago) of a home (I think it was in Maine), that had the us/can boarder running through it--in effect when they went from the bedroom to the living room they would have to clear the bp (us or can).:D
Does anyone remember this? [If this were as per OP, he might not be able to use the toilet for 5 years.:D]

That would be interesting passing through security everytime you need to go an use the can.;)

That would be interesting passing through security everytime you need to go an use the can.;)

It's on the Quebec Vermont border and US customs has completely screwed up what used to be a model trans-national community. What a bunch of neanderthals.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/18/world/americas/18border.html

Maybe US and Canada should get into some sort of Schengen agreement with each other? Now I have no experience with Canadian immigration, but the US one has gone crazy. Fingerprinting all foreigners (like me?) and treating every foreigner as a potential terrorist. I know people who will never again set foot in the US because of this craziness. They simply do not want to be treated as a terrorist where they go. Luckily the American people are much more friendlier than the US border guards and also much more welcoming as well, but the first impression is very important.

I totally agree. When I lived in Japan in the 90's I was shocked that they were still fingerprinting foreigners and they eventually stopped it due to protests.Many of those protesting were Americans, saying they felt like they were being treated like criminals. Now the Americans fingerprint almost everyone entering their country (Canadians are excepted but we'll see how long that lasts), every time they enter the country (at least the Japanese were smart enough to only do it once). We're seeing a former democracy turn facist right before our very eyes. Today, the US border chief said that Canadians were more of a terrorist threat than Mexicans!!!! I want to use a very strong expletive here but will just shake my head in sadness at how US paranoia has destroyed a formerly great friendship between the US and Canada. I guess we can always peddle our resources to China - they are much bigger anyways and I never have a problem crossing their border.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/us-border-chief-says-terror-threat-greater-from-canada-than-mexico/article2027713/

I totally agree. When I lived in Japan in the 90's I was shocked that they were still fingerprinting foreigners and they eventually stopped it due to protests.!

Too bad they brought it back in Japan--and it's not only once but every time you enter as a foreigner. I think it came back in 2007 or 2008. Fingerprints and photos.

I actually have much less of a problem with that than I do with the attitude which customs officials display (in the US). Fingerprinting me doesn't make me feel like a criminal when it's done politely as in Japan. In fact, I didn't think more than a few seconds on it. Compare that to the genuine physical stress response that many of us get when crossing an unfriendly border such as the US, where the thought process is "what sort of power trip or insane questioning will I be subjected to today?"

Too bad they brought it back in Japan--and it's not only once but every time you enter as a foreigner. I think it came back in 2007 or 2008. Fingerprints and photos.

I actually have much less of a problem with that than I do with the attitude which customs officials display (in the US). Fingerprinting me doesn't make me feel like a criminal when it's done politely as in Japan. In fact, I didn't think more than a few seconds on it. Compare that to the genuine physical stress response that many of us get when crossing an unfriendly border such as the US, where the thought process is "what sort of power trip or insane questioning will I be subjected to today?"

Yep, they brought it back in Japan thanks to the US's leadership (I use that term with intense sarcasm) on the matter. I also agree with the politeness issue. In fact, that's the #1 reason I'm pissed off - because US officials are the rudest in the world. Newsflash, they aren't making the world any safer by hassling innocent Canadians - they are certainly harming their own economic and political interests however. Stupid beyond belief.

It's on the Quebec Vermont border and US customs has completely screwed up what used to be a model trans-national community. What a bunch of neanderthals.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/18/world/americas/18border.html

Homeland security enhancements.:(

Next, they'll probably put up a barb wire fence accross Waterton Lake/Waterton National Park.:eek:

I see that the cottage owner's lawyer is optimistic / hopeful that he'll get the order repealed. The individual has already sold his cottage so it's something of a moot point.

Lawyer Len Saunders has built his career helping Canadians who have faced problems at the border, and has taken up Shaffer's case. He's been talking with head office about turning things around.

"I'm hoping it's going to be rescinded," he said. "They were reviewing the case yesterday and we may hear some positive results."

But it's already too late for the Shaffers' cottage. And though Mr. Shaffer may soon be allowed back into Point Roberts to pack his belongings and say goodbye, restoring his faith in U.S. customs may take a lot longer.

I don't know if the reporter means "Immigration" when she writes "customs" or, since it's not capitalized, she's engaging in a play on words between Customs and strange American customs.

http://m.ctv.ca/bc/20110518/bc_point_roberts_110518.html

A final follow-up on that Canadian cottage-owner...

For [Leah] Shaffer and his wife, the story had a partly happy ending. He received a letter from Seattle field director Michelle James informing him that the five-year exclusion ruling had been reversed upon review. For Shaffer, the news was bittersweet. They had just closed on the sale of their Point Roberts cottage. While grateful that things got squared away, he hopes the same thing doesn’t happen to other Canadians. “People need to come out from behind the bushes on this issue. It’s a huge issue on both sides of the border, and it’s time that it got fixed.”

http://www.allpointbulletin.com/news/article.exm/2011-05-27_how_not_to_get_kicked_out_of_the_country_for_fi ve_yearst’s a huge issue on both sides of the border, and it’s time that it got fixed.”

A final follow-up on that Canadian cottage-owner...

For [Leah] Shaffer and his wife, the story had a partly happy ending. He received a letter from Seattle field director Michelle James informing him that the five-year exclusion ruling had been reversed upon review. For Shaffer, the news was bittersweet. They had just closed on the sale of their Point Roberts cottage. While grateful that things got squared away, he hopes the same thing doesn’t happen to other Canadians. “People need to come out from behind the bushes on this issue. It’s a huge issue on both sides of the border, and it’s time that it got fixed.”

http://www.allpointbulletin.com/news/article.exm/2011-05-27_how_not_to_get_kicked_out_of_the_country_for_fi ve_yearst’s a huge issue on both sides of the border, and it’s time that it got fixed.”

The Canada-US border used to be just fine until the US screwed it up. Canadians just shake their heads and wonder how the US government could get it so wrong. Maybe one day they'll come to their senses - but by that time most Canadians will be spending their money, and sending their oil, elsewhere. Who's fault? America's 100%.

I see that the cottage owner's lawyer is optimistic / hopeful that he'll get the order repealed. The individual has already sold his cottage so it's something of a moot point.

Lawyer Len Saunders has built his career helping Canadians who have faced problems at the border, and has taken up Shaffer's case. He's been talking with head office about turning things around.

"I'm hoping it's going to be rescinded," he said. "They were reviewing the case yesterday and we may hear some positive results."

But it's already too late for the Shaffers' cottage. And though Mr. Shaffer may soon be allowed back into Point Roberts to pack his belongings and say goodbye, restoring his faith in U.S. customs may take a lot longer.

I don't know if the reporter means "Immigration" when she writes "customs" or, since it's not capitalized, she's engaging in a play on words between Customs and strange American customs.

http://m.ctv.ca/bc/20110518/bc_point_roberts_110518.html

Thank goodness the owner was able to sell the cottage..

Next thing we know, there could be seizures of property for homeland security reasons.. known terrorists have had their assets frozen.. so reality is that the situation could have been worse.. So at least the money for the cottage will be the seller's

Thank goodness the owner was able to sell the cottage..

Next thing we know, there could be seizures of property for homeland security reasons.. known terrorists have had their assets frozen.. so reality is that the situation could have been worse.. So at least the money for the cottage will be the seller's

Extension of RICO seizures. Don't even have to prove you;re guilty, just charged.

Extension of RICO seizures. Don't even have to prove you;re guilty, just charged.

Yeah.. the cottage was fair game..

It's on the Quebec Vermont border and US customs has completely screwed up what used to be a model trans-national community. What a bunch of neanderthals.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/18/world/americas/18border.html

Secede?

Seems to me that we, the US, would want to make entry to visitors as simple and easy as possible.

Seems to me that we, the US, would want to make entry to visitors as simple and easy as possible.

Exactly. The problem is that most Americans live far from the border and hardly ever think about their neighbour to the North. Also, the US CBP who staff the crossings usually do not come from the area and have no appreciation of the great history between our two great countries. Often military types with ZERO customer service skills. Hence the neglect and resultant poor policy. Such a shame as it is completely unnecessary - used to be a friendly border and one to be proud of for both sides.

. Maybe one day they'll come to their senses - but by that time most Canadians will be spending their money, and sending their oil, elsewhere. Who's fault? America's 100%.

Ha. Unlikely. Call me when that Canada-to-Mexico pipeline is complete.

Seems to me that we, the US, would want to make entry to visitors as simple and easy as possible.
At least one of the two major political parties in America certainly doesn't agree given their stance on immigration policy.

Ha. Unlikely. Call me when that Canada-to-Mexico pipeline is complete.

Oh, it's very likely. Obviously the oil would go to China and India via pipeline and tanker and it's much more advanced than your knowledge of these issues...http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Hearings+controversial+pipeline+between+Alberta+co ast/4760600/story.html The US is not the only game in town and China and India will soon have much larger economies than the US so as you sink down the pecking order you might rue the day your neglect cost you what Canada could help you out with. Fact is, we have everything the world wants when it comes to commodities and since we have more bounty than we could ever possibly use ourselves we'll sell it to whoever plays nicest. America might come to the party too late, only to find their place is occupied. Quite frankly, why should we sell it to you guys when you treat us like crap at the border?

Ha. Unlikely. Call me when that Canada-to-Mexico pipeline is complete.

If the US doesn't buy Canadian oil, other countries will..

To ignore the second largest stockpile of oil in the world within friendly border confines is a bit irrational imo.. Alberta secures US supply of oil for decades to come..

Like it are not we Canadians are the best friends you have in the world.

In the past we were in wars (WWI, WWII etc.) years before you were. Currently we are backing you up in Afghanistan. We are your number one trading partner and and a crucial source of your energy imports.

I would suggest that you have enough enemies in the world without losing those friends you have.

Ha. Unlikely. Call me when that Canada-to-Mexico pipeline is complete.

Hmmm? Since when are pipelines the only way to transport large amounts of liquid? Did I miss a memo?

At least one of the two major political parties in America certainly doesn't agree given their stance on immigration policy.

Entry of visitors and immigration is two separate issues.

I fail to understand how anyone cannot object to the uncontrolled entry of foreign nationals as is happening on our southern border.

Back on point, now that the Field Director has overruled the front line agent, his supervisor, and a secondary supervisor, what happens? Besides the obvious phone call down the line (Thanks for making us look stupid), does anybody get a ding in his jacket, retrained, whatever? Or is the agent free to continue in his delusions of grandeur?

FB?

Hmmm? Since when are pipelines the only way to transport large amounts of liquid? Did I miss a memo?

I never said it was the only way. But it's certainly the most efficient and economical of today's options.

It's quite a stretch to think that Canada is going to cut of the US oil supply because of unfriendly border policies. The people in power (both politically and economically) aren't typically bothered by border procedures- decisions are going to be driven by trade agreements and economics.

Hmmm? Since when are pipelines the only way to transport large amounts of liquid? Did I miss a memo?

I never said it was the only way. But it's certainly the most efficient and economical of today's options.

It's quite a stretch to think that Canada is going to cut of the US oil supply because of unfriendly border policies. The people in power (both politically and economically) aren't typically bothered by border procedures- decisions are going to be driven by trade agreements and economics.

Other methods of transportation are less green.

Back on point, now that the Field Director has overruled the front line agent, his supervisor, and a secondary supervisor, what happens? Besides the obvious phone call down the line (Thanks for making us look stupid), does anybody get a ding in his jacket, retrained, whatever? Or is the agent free to continue in his delusions of grandeur?


I'm guessing there are some guys with really big chips on their shoulder now.

> most Americans live far from the border ...

Um, no. 2/3rd's of the US population within 100 miles of the border, according
to the Census Bureau.

Why is 100 miles important? Because it's the "Constituion Free Zone" when
it comes to DHS doing warrantless searches:

http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone

Back on point, now that the Field Director has overruled the front line agent, his supervisor, and a secondary supervisor, what happens? Besides the obvious phone call down the line (Thanks for making us look stupid), does anybody get a ding in his jacket, retrained, whatever? Or is the agent free to continue in his delusions of grandeur?


The agent is perfectly free to slap another 5-year inadmissability finding on the same people the next time he sees them, even on exactly the same grounds. He may face internal issues if he tries to do this, but legally he is perfectly within his rights to do so under the expedited removal regulations.

As I posted earlier on the thread.

One issue that is not properly addressed though is whether serving the 5 year ban "removes" the underlying grounds for inadmissability, or whether they can be used again. I've seen someone who served the 5 years following an ER, subsequently obtained a B1/B2 at the consular post and then was ER-ed again at the PoE this time with a LIFETIME ban on the flimsy grounds that his I-867 statement from the first PoE encounter had a line where he stated that he did not believe himself to be inadmissable and this was then ruled to be a "false statement" by virtue of the finding of inadmissability by the original INS officer and hence the second CBP officer used it as the grounds to ER the second time. The I-860 narrative was entirely circular in nature but the supervisor authorised the ER by telephone anyway. He has good grounds for a waiver to be granted by the AG's office but it will be a few years and a few thousand dollars in legal fees to get to that point.

Hmm, I was certain this case would never get reversed because of the terse reception it received in the press and DHS is never into making face-saving gestures. Glad to see it worked out for the better, even though the property is sold....hopefully Pt Roberts can sleep safely knowing those dangerous Canadians with their powerful currency and hyperactive shopping habits have been removed from their midst.

I think it's time the INA be modified to permit citizens of Canada and Mexico who can demonstrate either sufficient personal resources to fund their stay or permanent gainful employment outside the US, and possessing private health insurance, to enter the US as often as they like for as long as they want - provided no gainful employment is attempted, which would yield not just removal, but a 5 yr entry ban at that point. I think that's a fair compromise since it's really social costs, health costs and employment that drive the anti-immigrant debate.

I dare anyone to show me the harm in such a policy.

A final follow-up on that Canadian cottage-owner...

For [Leah] Shaffer and his wife, the story had a partly happy ending. He received a letter from Seattle field director Michelle James informing him that the five-year exclusion ruling had been reversed upon review. For Shaffer, the news was bittersweet. They had just closed on the sale of their Point Roberts cottage. While grateful that things got squared away, he hopes the same thing doesn’t happen to other Canadians. “People need to come out from behind the bushes on this issue. It’s a huge issue on both sides of the border, and it’s time that it got fixed.”

http://www.allpointbulletin.com/news/article.exm/2011-05-27_how_not_to_get_kicked_out_of_the_country_for_fi ve_yearst’s a huge issue on both sides of the border, and it’s time that it got fixed.”

Its only because his situation was highlighted in the newspapers. Think about the others who aren't so lucky to have the press on your side! For example the Mexican born Canadian citizen, living in Canada with husband and 2 children , and own a business and house, who drove across the border with 2 friends from Europe. She was stripped searched, and her $20K car impounded and she was banned from entering the US. I read about her case in the papers once but I'm sorry I can't seem to find it online for verification anymore...

For [Leah] Shaffer and his wife, the story had a partly happy ending. He received a letter from Seattle field director Michelle James informing him that the five-year exclusion ruling had been reversed upon review. For Shaffer, the news was bittersweet. They had just closed on the sale of their Point Roberts cottage. While grateful that things got squared away, he hopes the same thing doesn’t happen to other Canadians. “People need to come out from behind the bushes on this issue. It’s a huge issue on both sides of the border, and it’s time that it got fixed.”

http://www.allpointbulletin.com/news/article.exm/2011-05-27_how_not_to_get_kicked_out_of_the_country_for_fi ve_yearst’s a huge issue on both sides of the border, and it’s time that it got fixed.”

Impossible. The 5 year ban cannot be reversed:

The order of removal can not be appealed or overturned because the subject was not a Lawful Permanent Resident, a Refugee, Asylee nor did he claim asylum during the process. The only recourse the subject has to enter the United States during the time period that he is barred would be to request and obtain permission from the Attorney General to reapply during the time period.

The story must be erroneous. (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16354762-post16.html) :D

There is no appeal of an Expedited Removal not during the process and not after the process is complete except in the following circumstances:

1. The alien claims asylum during the Expedited Removal process.

2. The alien is a Lawful Permanent Resident ( has a green card) or the alien has been admitted to the United States as a refugee (sec 207) or an asylee (sec208).




The person in this news article was ordered removed and given a 5 year bar. The order of removal can not be appealed or overturned because the subject was not a Lawful Permanent Resident, a Refugee, Asylee nor did he claim asylum during the process. The only recourse the subject has to enter the United States during the time period that he is barred would be to request and obtain permission from the Attorney General to reapply during the time period. I have never seen this successfully done. Even if granted the removal itself would not be reversed or overturned and could be re-instated at anytime. The subject would also have to have a waiver for the initial ground of inadmissibility. The most I would think that he could get is paroled not admitted to the United States for a short period of time to resolve any personal issues such as the sale of property.

FB

Seems the order was reversed. Care to explain based on the information you posted above?

Seems the order was reversed. Care to explain based on the information you posted above?

How about you and mre5756 quote all the relevant posts? Don't worry about it this time I will post it for you. I will draw your attention to post #25 of this thread the following was posted:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredd
One US immigration lawyer opines on her website as follows:

Can I Appeal an Order of Expedited Removal?

The short answer is no – orders of expedited removal are not reviewable by any judge or court. There is no appeal process for such orders.

It is possible, however, to submit a request for review to CBP directly, which is what our office has done in situations where we have determined that the expedited removal order was improperly issued. In such situations – where the immigration laws were improperly applied by the CBP officials at the POE – review by additional supervisory CBP officials has resulted in the order of expedited removal being vacated as if it was never issued.

http://www.borderimmigrationlawyer.c...dited-removal/

This is rare as well but I have at least seen this attempted on two occasions. One was successful and one was not. It is not a formal process like the lawyer's website makes it out to be. It is just the lawyer’s office calling the Port Director of the port of entry and asking that the circumstances surrounding the Removal Order be looked at by the Port Director. The lawyer can submit documentation if the lawyer wishes to. The important thing to realize is that there is nothing compelling the Port Director to even talk to that lawyer. There is no section of law or CFR that addresses reversing an Expedited Removal order. What happens in these cases is that the paperwork is just torn up and computer databases are updated. Like I said this is rare because in most cases it was the Port Director that approved the Expedited Removal order in the first place as ER orders must be approved by second line supervisors which in most cases except for very large ports is the Port Director.

FB

I said very clearly in that post that what happened in this case was possible that I had even seen it occur but what happened in this case was not a reversal of an expedited removal order in the legal definition that I have to deal with in my employment. So now I have seen it attempted twice one successful and one not successful and I have heard of it attempted once and that attempt I heard about successful. That part is out of the way. Let’s discuss what actually legally happened here.

The order was not reversed in the legal sense of the term. If you care to read the excerpt I posted earlier in the thread that was taken directly from the law you will see that there is not a legal process that even allows for that to happen save some very specific circumstances that were not present in this case. There are no papers to file with any court to review the removal order. There are no forms to fill out to ask for reconsideration. As I have already posted there is absolutely no legal process the COMPELS CBP to even talk to you or a lawyer concerning an expedited removal order after the fact.

What happened here is that the original officers that made the original decision were "asked" to tear up the original paperwork and remove it from the databases. This makes it so that the activity never occurred not reversed. You will notice that the "asked" is in parenthesis for a reason. This reason is the officers need to be "asked" to do that because there is no legal process for someone else to do it. One of the reasons that this is a rare occurrence is because there is not an avenue for it to happen. There is the question if it is even legal. The original officers could say no I am not going to make it go away. It certainly would not be a great career move for the officer.

What this amounts to is "ticket fixing" on a much larger scale. If you get a speeding ticket you can go to court to appeal the conviction of the ticket. If the judge agrees with you, that conviction or order will be reversed. If you know a ranking officer in the police department you could call him, say you know a captain, that captain could go to the officer that wrote the speeding ticket and say hey so and so got a bum rap he is a good guy could you make that ticket go away cause he is going to cause a big stink in the local newspaper which we don't want to deal with. So the officer says well I don't want to make an enemy of the captain so I guess the ticket goes away.

What do you actually think happened in this case? Do you think that the fact that the property in the United States was already sold had anything to do with it? The part that many have issues with, and I totally understand why, is that in the cases of expedited removal the individual does not have the opportunity to take that case to a judge. When expedited removal became part of the INA in 1996, there was much debate about giving an officer that much authority. That is why it was written into the CFR's that second line supervisory approval was needed to order an expedited removal. That way three separate officer's with at least one of them being senior management would have to agree that the case was worthy of an expedited removal.

In this case, the media accounts make it sound as if one day CBP decided to just remove this individual and force him to sell his property. If you do some digging in the media accounts and the open source information you will find that his property has been on the market for the past three years. He had multiple discussions with CBP since 2008 concerning his status in the United States. He was very aware that there was an issue that needed to be resolved. I believe that he also was very aware of what he needed to do or provide to CBP to resolve the issue. I kind of think that the US Government showed an incredible amount of patience and was very reasonable in giving the individual three years to resolve the issue.

The reality is the underlying issue has now been resolved. The issue had to be forced to a conclusion but it is now resolved. Does the government have anything to gain by making the bar go away? Does the government have anything to lose by not making the bar go away? I am betting that this is the driving factor to the upper management person that asked that the removal order go away. It is all political considerations that really should not enter into something that was a legal matter. That is also why it gets messy because those political considerations happen even when there is no legal recourse or avenue for those considerations to legally happen.

FB

I appreciate the explanation. By whatever means I don't think it can be said that the order was not reversed.

I find it sad that a government agent (or three) can decide to not admit a foreign national for any period of time and that person has no due process. Seems anti-American to me.

I appreciate the explanation. By whatever means I don't think it can be said that the order was not reversed.

I find it sad that a government agent (or three) can decide to not admit a foreign national for any period of time and that person has no due process. Seems anti-American to me.

"Un-American" doesn't begin to adequately describe such a policy. It's outright evil. Even passively accepting it is morally inexcusable.

I never said it was the only way. But it's certainly the most efficient and economical of today's options.

It's quite a stretch to think that Canada is going to cut of the US oil supply because of unfriendly border policies. The people in power (both politically and economically) aren't typically bothered by border procedures- decisions are going to be driven by trade agreements and economics.

Well if that's what you think, good luck with that....

> most Americans live far from the border ...

Um, no. 2/3rd's of the US population within 100 miles of the border, according
to the Census Bureau.

Why is 100 miles important? Because it's the "Constituion Free Zone" when
it comes to DHS doing warrantless searches:

http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone

2/3 of the US population lives within 100 miles of the Canadian border? Really? I'd like to see the link to your source.

Hmm, I was certain this case would never get reversed because of the terse reception it received in the press and DHS is never into making face-saving gestures. Glad to see it worked out for the better, even though the property is sold....hopefully Pt Roberts can sleep safely knowing those dangerous Canadians with their powerful currency and hyperactive shopping habits have been removed from their midst.

I think it's time the INA be modified to permit citizens of Canada and Mexico who can demonstrate either sufficient personal resources to fund their stay or permanent gainful employment outside the US, and possessing private health insurance, to enter the US as often as they like for as long as they want - provided no gainful employment is attempted, which would yield not just removal, but a 5 yr entry ban at that point. I think that's a fair compromise since it's really social costs, health costs and employment that drive the anti-immigrant debate.


I dare anyone to show me the harm in such a policy.

LOL! Canadians have free medical, why would we ever bother with expensive US private insurance???

Impossible. The 5 year ban cannot be reversed:

The order of removal can not be appealed or overturned because the subject was not a Lawful Permanent Resident, a Refugee, Asylee nor did he claim asylum during the process. The only recourse the subject has to enter the United States during the time period that he is barred would be to request and obtain permission from the Attorney General to reapply during the time period.

The story must be erroneous. (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16354762-post16.html) :D

...but it was reported in the Vancouver Sun and I trust it over you so you must be erroneous.

2/3 of the US population lives within 100 miles of the Canadian border? Really? I'd like to see the link to your source.

The OP just said "the border", not "the Canadian border", and did provide a link (although one would have to go dig in the US Census data to verify the ACLU's point).

From the ACLU:

Using data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, the ACLU has determined that nearly 2/3 of the entire US population (197.4 million people) live within 100 miles of the US land and coastal borders.

The OP just said "the border", not "the Canadian border", and did provide a link (although one would have to go dig in the US Census data to verify the ACLU's point).

From the ACLU:

Um, he was responding to an earlier post of mine where I stated that most Americans live far from the CANADIAN border...which is correct. Hence the neglect by the US government. The irrelevant stat he referenced includes the entire land and ocean borders of the US which include cities like San Francisco, which is hundreds of miles from the nearest land border! Nice try but no cigar. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_nwo57.htm
The fact remains that only 5% of Americans live close enough to the Canadian border to even pick up Canadian TV signals! http://www.fpri.org/orbis/4702/depalma.americaseptentrional.html

LOL! Canadians have free medical, why would we ever bother with expensive US private insurance???

First, the medical plans are not really free, just much cheaper. Second, they only pay the same benefit to a foreign medical doctor or facility that they would pay in Canada - which leaves a huge gap for the Canadian visitor to cover.

Private health insurance for Canadians when traveling is essential - and US policyholders should check their own policies for coverage gaps when traveling abroad. You'd be surprised how many US health plans, private and employer sponsored, provide little or no coverage, or substantially reduced benefits if you get sick or injured while on a trip. The Canadian system will not provide coverage to a US or other foreign person and you could be stuck with a HUGE bill if you travel to Canada and your US policy does not provide travel coverage.

To my point, anyone residing in the US under my proposal would be ineligible for US coverage, and would need to show proof of other coverage before being admitted for an indefinite stay so we can eliminate the risk of unpaid hospital bills being a burden on our economy and healthcare system.

2/3 of the US population lives within 100 miles of the Canadian border? Really? I'd like to see the link to your source.

Perhaps the census bureau is out of sync?

Which borders.. Maybe they are talking about the Mexican and Coastline borders? :)

Edit: Confirmed reading down the thread..

LOL! Canadians have free medical, why would we ever bother with expensive US private insurance???

Canadian health care is not free. It just is not out of pocket. Canadians pay for their health care in the form of taxes, high taxes from the Canadian sources that I have read and spoken with. Any where from the 30 to 47 percent of Canadians income goes to taxes. That is not free anything.

FB

Canadian health care is not free. It just is not out of pocket. Canadians pay for their health care in the form of taxes, high taxes from the Canadian sources that I have read and spoken with. Any where from the 30 to 47 percent of Canadians income goes to taxes. That is not free anything.

FB

Further clarification.. depending on the province, the premiums paid to health care each period will vary..

For example in Alberta, we used to pay premiums until the government decided not to charge it anymore.. but other provinces still charge a premium for health care..

The premiums doesn't cover all of health care, but helps subsidize it along with government budgets..

LOL! Canadians have free medical, why would we ever bother with expensive US private insurance???yeah, my daughter tells me exactly how free it is. Are you unemployed...

Further clarification.. depending on the province, the premiums paid to health care each period will vary..

For example in Alberta, we used to pay premiums until the government decided not to charge it anymore.. but other provinces still charge a premium for health care..

The premiums doesn't cover all of health care, but helps subsidize it along with government budgets..

You are missing the point a little bit. It doesn't matter if it is an official premium or not. Tax money is going to provide the service. Nothing is for free and must be paid for someway regardless of what that method of payment is called.

FB

You are missing the point a little bit. It doesn't matter if it is an official premium or not. Tax money is going to provide the service. Nothing is for free and must be paid for someway regardless of what that method of payment is called.

FB

If you read my comment was never to say health care was free..

Simply, premiums vary from no charge to a charge.. I agree that we shouldn't look at Universal health care as a free service.. because it isn't.

We in Canada look at having health care as a benefit.. a benefit that sometimes Americans think we're lucky to have because its free.. but the fact is it takes alot of resources and taxpayer money's to keep what we have going..

Also an entry from New Brunswick to Maine. Why one might ask? After 4 1/2 months driving around Europe we returned to the U.S. with our slightly used new car. Since the car entered at Port Newark, we had a longish drive home to Oregon and decided the trans-Canada Highway was the preferred route. Please note that the vehicle was stuffed with 5 suitcases, a woven laundry basket and various other items many of which had been declared upon our entry at JFK. We also had the import papers on the vehicle.

It was before 10:30 a.m. and as we were driving on the Canadian side, we noted a large sign and a directional arrow pointing to the nearest McDonalds. Since my wife only eats one thing at McD's - an egg McMuffin with strawberry jam - I made a left turn and almost immediately found myself at the U.S. border control station. Yes, McDonalds was in Maine thus requiring an entry into the U.S.

We pulled up to the deserted station and the agent on duty asked what we were doing. Note: The car had Oregon plates rather than the German "Zoll" plates that it arrived with. Completely innocently, I responded that we were going to McDonalds. That statement resulted in a two and a half hour grilling with telephone calls by the agent to various unknown sources of information. Probably just to his wife asking what was for lunch. He also explored all our paperwork, the contents of the vehicle and quized both of us at length. Needless to say, breakfast was over by the time we cleared so we turned around and drove into New Brunswick. The Canadians did not blink when we came through.

I had hoped that the agent had retired by now, but apparently he is still at work. Political comment about government employees on the ME-NB border deleted.

Also an entry from New Brunswick to Maine. Why one might ask? After 4 1/2 months driving around Europe we returned to the U.S. with our slightly used new car. Since the car entered at Port Newark, we had a longish drive home to Oregon and decided the trans-Canada Highway was the preferred route. Please note that the vehicle was stuffed with 5 suitcases, a woven laundry basket and various other items many of which had been declared upon our entry at JFK. We also had the import papers on the vehicle.

It was before 10:30 a.m. and as we were driving on the Canadian side, we noted a large sign and a directional arrow pointing to the nearest McDonalds. Since my wife only eats one thing at McD's - an egg McMuffin with strawberry jam - I made a left turn and almost immediately found myself at the U.S. border control station. Yes, McDonalds was in Maine thus requiring an entry into the U.S.

We pulled up to the deserted station and the agent on duty asked what we were doing. Note: The car had Oregon plates rather than the German "Zoll" plates that it arrived with. Completely innocently, I responded that we were going to McDonalds. That statement resulted in a two and a half hour grilling with telephone calls by the agent to various unknown sources of information. Probably just to his wife asking what was for lunch. He also explored all our paperwork, the contents of the vehicle and quized both of us at length. Needless to say, breakfast was over by the time we cleared so we turned around and drove into New Brunswick. The Canadians did not blink when we came through.

I had hoped that the agent had retired by now, but apparently he is still at work. Political comment about government employees on the ME-NB border deleted.

Another outstanding CBP action, preventing US citizens from doing commerce in the USA.

I think the difference is the frequency of border crossings and the ultimate destination of the visitor. In some cases the inspector can, at their discretion, demand proof of resources (bank account balances, savings, etc) to determine if the visitor can support themselves for the duration of their stay.

My folks have crossed by car and by air, and have never been challenged on this - they just say "spending the winter in Florida until late April with our son" and that's always been good enough.

It probably also has to do with a younger person presenting themselves at the border frequently (higher perceived risk with employment) vs. a senior citizen, obviously past their working years, presenting themselves for a winter stay with every intention of returning home.

You are missing the point a little bit. It doesn't matter if it is an official premium or not. Tax money is going to provide the service. Nothing is for free and must be paid for someway regardless of what that method of payment is called.

FB

Vs. the US where more than 35,000,000 people have no health insurance whatsoever because they can not pay for it. The only country in the developed world that thinks it's morally right to deny more than 10% of its population a basic human right. Not just weird American exceptionalism, but moral bankruptcy.

yeah, my daughter tells me exactly how free it is. Are you unemployed...

Yeah, I'm a superelite frequent flyer so I MUST be unemployed. Who the hell is your daughter? Why would I care?

yeah, my daughter tells me exactly how free it is. Are you unemployed...

Yeah, I'm a superelite frequent flyer so I MUST be unemployed. Who the hell is your daughter? Why would I care? My daughter thinks you're an idiot.

Vs. the US where more than 35,000,000 people have no health insurance whatsoever because they can not pay for it. The only country in the developed world that thinks it's morally right to deny more than 10% of its population a basic human right. Not just weird American exceptionalism, but moral bankruptcy.

BCbailey - there's no sense in arguing because they'll never get it - The american right and Fox news already brainwashed them into thinking their health care system is far superior to ours. I travel to the US very often, and I saw first hand how cruel and cynical their health care system is. I would rather have a bit higher taxes (because they're not MUCH MORE than the US IRS) and have universal health care.

In the US - basically you have no money, you don't get treated. Yes they take you to the emergency room until your emergency condition is stabilised, however, heaven forbid you need some medical procedure done or a surgery and you don't have insurance --- your basically screwed.

Oh and also - if your one of the lucky ones with health insurance - don't forget those copayments and thousands of dollars worth of deductibles.

BCbailey - there's no sense in arguing because they'll never get it - The american right and Fox news already brainwashed them into thinking their health care system is far superior to ours. I travel to the US very often, and I saw first hand how cruel and cynical their health care system is. I would rather have a bit higher taxes (because they're not MUCH MORE than the US IRS) and have universal health care.

In the US - basically you have no money, you don't get treated. Yes they take you to the emergency room until your emergency condition is stabilised, however, heaven forbid you need some medical procedure done or a surgery and you don't have insurance --- your basically screwed.

Oh and also - if your one of the lucky ones with health insurance - don't forget those copayments and thousands of dollars worth of deductibles.

I think that many get it. They just don't agree. You certainly pay for your healthcare in Canada just not at time of service. You pay in taxes and it not being much more than the US is a matter of opinion. 15% to 20% more is pretty significant in my book. Especially when you consider the wait for the service that you are paying more for. I find it interesting that everyday Canadians apply for entry into the United States for medical treatment they say they have to wait to receive in Canada. A very close family friend happens to be Canadian and is a Pediatric nurse. Interestingly enough she had to have her children receive their vaccinations in the United States because she was told in Canada that she would have to wait one to one and a half years before they could be administered in Canada. Luckily for her she lived close to the border so it wasn't an inconvenience to make the appointment and have the shots completed in two weeks time. In fairness, that was several years ago and I am told that it has improved some. The wait is measured in months not years now.

Many Canadians also share the view that Canadian healthcare is not quite all that is made out to be in terms of wait times and the financial sustainability of the system.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/charter-health-care-canada

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/publicationdisplay.aspx?id=17388&terms=wait+times+in+Canada

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/publicationdisplay.aspx?id=17352&terms=wait+times+in+Canada

http://canadaonline.about.com/od/healthcarewaittimes/a/waittimesgtees.htm

http://www.justlanded.com/english/Canada/Forums/Health/wait-times-for-MRI-and-medical-treatment-in-Canada


There certainly are different opinions out there and they are not all of US origin

FB

There certainly are different opinions out there and they are not all of US origin

FB

Well stated. ^ Back to the actual topic, this past weekend we were in Canada attending a memorial service, and met some former colleagues, some of whom we hadn't seen in more than ten years.

It was sadly interesting to hear the unpleasant border-crossing stories that came up spontaneously when discussing the fact that we live near the border on the U.S. side. The older ones, of course, compare it to the "good old days." We didn't hear anything terrible, nobody denied admittance, but the sense was of people trying to get past an unpleasant bouncer into an attractive night club.

People generally enjoy the club once they're inside, but getting past the doorman is just a hassle that takes a lot of the fun out of it.

People need to understand that crossing a border and getting admitted into another(foreign) country is NOT a right, it is a priviledge, and is totally based upon the border agent's decision. Just because we're Canadians, we are not "entitled" to a free entry to another country(US). Now that should be a rude awakening to many Cdns who refuse to grow up and enlighten themselves and "expect" questioning. Live with pride and dignity rather than getting used to utter humiliation each and every time.

Why not spend your winters in a more friendlier country? There are plenty of countries which are friendlier and even offer residency upon purchasing of property/investments there. And they got nice weather too. Or you don't really have that much to spend and your only choice is the USA?

Expect more and more scrutiny as the Canadian population grows due to the immigration settlement programs. It is time we spend our tourist dollars at more friendlier places other than the US. Send them a message that way.

On a side note, I have a feeling that these cross-border shoppers have also been a bit of a catalyst in more border "scrutiny", the penny-pinchers who flock across the border for cheap bread, milk and gas.

Having spent significant time on both sides of the border I can't let Firebug's assertions go unchallenged. I would say the difference in terms of taxation (at all levels, including payroll taxes, UI contributions, user fees and other taxes) is even or on the order of 1-2% for tax competitive states (such as Washington), and taxes are actually significantly higher than Canada for your ordinary taxpayer (middle class homeowner) in the northeast. Canada's social security is fully funded, and max contributions are 1/3rd of what they are in the U.S. If you are an entrepreneur, you are far better off being in Canada because you don't have to worry about health insurance, and you aren't getting nuked with a 15% FICA rate.

Wait times exist but they are primarily for elective procedures. The shot story seems very off to me - it is likely a situation where the vaccine was not approved for use in Canada rather than a waiting list. The waiting lists primarily exist for elective surgeries such as knee replacements rather than for emergent situations. You are free to pay for treatments at your own expense should you not want to wait. Some hospitals close to the border on the U.S. side also provide surge support for certain treatments, which is covered by Canadian provincial health care plans. In any case, Canada spends significantly less per capita than the U.S. (about half) and its residents live longer (3 years longer if I remember the statistic right).

Also some of the sources you quote aren't exactly considered impartial - the Fraser institute would be considered the equivalent of the Heritage Institute in Canada.

Canadian health care is by no means perfect, but I've seen too much of the ugly side of the U.S. system not to defend it.

@Fredd - that's my sense as well - there has been a real sea change over the last 20 years in the attitude of border officials on both sides. It's a testament to the strength of the relationship between the two countries that the people remain close in spite of increasingly confrontational border officials.

Having spent significant time on both sides of the border I can't let Firebug's assertions go unchallenged. I would say the difference in terms of taxation (at all levels, including payroll taxes, UI contributions, user fees and other taxes) is even or on the order of 1-2% for tax competitive states (such as Washington), and taxes are actually significantly higher than Canada for your ordinary taxpayer (middle class homeowner) in the northeast. Canada's social security is fully funded, and max contributions are 1/3rd of what they are in the U.S. If you are an entrepreneur, you are far better off being in Canada because you don't have to worry about health insurance, and you aren't getting nuked with a 15% FICA rate.

Wait times exist but they are primarily for elective procedures. The shot story seems very off to me - it is likely a situation where the vaccine was not approved for use in Canada rather than a waiting list. The waiting lists primarily exist for elective surgeries such as knee replacements rather than for emergent situations. You are free to pay for treatments at your own expense should you not want to wait. Some hospitals close to the border on the U.S. side also provide surge support for certain treatments, which is covered by Canadian provincial health care plans. In any case, Canada spends significantly less per capita than the U.S. (about half) and its residents live longer (3 years longer if I remember the statistic right).

Also some of the sources you quote aren't exactly considered impartial - the Fraser institute would be considered the equivalent of the Heritage Institute in Canada.

Canadian health care is by no means perfect, but I've seen too much of the ugly side of the U.S. system not to defend it.

@Fredd - that's my sense as well - there has been a real sea change over the last 20 years in the attitude of border officials on both sides. It's a testament to the strength of the relationship between the two countries that the people remain close in spite of increasingly confrontational border officials.

The shot story may seem off to you. However, I witnessed it, in the same manner that I have witnessed Canadians crossing the border in order to receive healthcare that they stated that they had to wait to long for in Canada. Many of the TN applicants that I have interviewed have stated one of the main reasons to live and work in the US is the lowered tax burden. Even, in one of the posts above someone stated, I think in jest, about cross border shopping for cheap bread, milk and gas. There is some truth to that jest it is the taxes in Canada that make those items more expensive. In the US the sales tax is an average of 6% to 8% in Canada it is between 12% to 15%. I am not making the numbers up they are available for all to see on the Canadian government websites. The following is just a quick search and are relatively old numbers but are available for all to see.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Canada#Sales_taxes


International comparison (personal income tax)
Comparison of taxes paid by a household earning the country's average wage (as of 2005), including social security contributions paid by employer

Country………Single………..Married…….Country……….Single ………Married
……………..no children…..2 Children…………………..no children……2 children

Australia……..28.3%..............16.0%............. .Korea………..17.3%..............15.2%
Austria…..…...47.4%.............35.5%............. .Luxembourg…35.3%.............12.2%
Belgium……...55.4%..............40.3%.............M exico………18.2%..............18.2%
Canada ……….31.6%..............21.5%………Netherlands….38.6%. .............29.1%
Czech Republic.43.8%.............27.1%............New Zealand...20.5%..............14.5%
Denmark……...41.4%.............29.6%............Nor way………37.3%………..29.6%
Finland……….44.6%.……….38.4%............Poland………..4 3.6%………..42.1%
France………...50.1%.............41.7%............Por tugal………36.2%.............26.6%
Germany……...51.8%.............35.7%............Slo vakia………38.3%……….23.2%
Greece.………..38.8%.............39.2%............Spa in………….39.0%.............33.4%
Hungary………50.5%.............39.9%………Sweden……….47.9 %……….42.4%
Iceland………..29.0%.............11.0%.............Sw itzerland…..29.5%.............18.6%
Ireland.………..25.7%...............8.1%....……Turkey… ……...42.7%.............42.7%
Italy…...………45.4%.............35.2%………United Kingdom.33.5%............27.1%
Japan………….27.7%.............24.9%....……United States…...29.1%............11.9%
Source: OECD, 2005 data

Also this is an interesting paper regarding healthcare in both countries. It is also interesting that it somewhat discounts the use of infant mortality rates and longevity as a measure of quality of healthcare. This is due to those rates being a influenced more by the difference in population and life style that is led by that population and not the quality of the healthcare.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w13429.pdf

I am well aware that the difference is money spent and time waiting for "elective procedures” However, when one needs a knee replacement, a hip replacement, or cataracts removed and has to wait months not being able to be mobile or be able to see, I am betting they don't feel like it is an elective procedure nor does it address the people I have personally spoken to as they entered the United States to receive cancer treatment because they were told to wait in Canada. I find it interesting that suit had to be filed in Quebec for someone to use private medical insurance to pay for procedures with more suits to follow.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2010/02/09/que-breast-cancer-lawsuit.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaoulli_v._Quebec_(Attorney_General)

http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/dick200512200840.asp

FB

People need to understand that crossing a border and getting admitted into another(foreign) country is NOT a right, it is a priviledge, and is totally based upon the border agent's decision. Just because we're Canadians, we are not "entitled" to a free entry to another country(US). Now that should be a rude awakening to many Cdns who refuse to grow up and enlighten themselves and "expect" questioning. Live with pride and dignity rather than getting used to utter humiliation each and every time.

Why not spend your winters in a more friendlier country? There are plenty of countries which are friendlier and even offer residency upon purchasing of property/investments there. And they got nice weather too. Or you don't really have that much to spend and your only choice is the USA?

Expect more and more scrutiny as the Canadian population grows due to the immigration settlement programs. It is time we spend our tourist dollars at more friendlier places other than the US. Send them a message that way.

On a side note, I have a feeling that these cross-border shoppers have also been a bit of a catalyst in more border "scrutiny", the penny-pinchers who flock across the border for cheap bread, milk and gas.

I agree with you ; its definitely not a right to enter another (foreign) country. I'm ok with all the questions being asked, as long as they are in a professional and dignified manner, and not meant to belitter (sp?) others. However, (especially first world countries, and ESPECIALLY the US) should treat visitors with more dignity and respect, rather than just assume everyone is trying to move there.

Even, in one of the posts above someone stated, I think in jest, about cross border shopping for cheap bread, milk and gas. There is some truth to that jest it is the taxes in Canada that make those items more expensive.

Actually, Canadian marketing boards (http://www.jstor.org/pss/825670) make the price of certain commodities one step more complicated than you posit.

Unfortunately, enough Canadians undergo negative experiences entering the US (and, in fairness, some Americans and others do entering Canada as well) that rational discussion can soon degenerate into comments along the lines of "Why would I want to visit such a crummy place?" I don't think that climate furthers the interests either of the U.S. or Canada.

I think the poster above hit the nail on the head with the comment "...rather than just assume everyone is trying to move there..." ^ Many Canadians and other foreigners find that perceived attitude somewhat insulting.

Actually, Canadian marketing boards (http://www.jstor.org/pss/825670) make the price of certain commodities one step more complicated than you posit.

Unfortunately, enough Canadians undergo negative experiences entering the US (and, in fairness, some Americans and others do entering Canada as well) that rational discussion can soon degenerate into comments along the lines of "Why would I want to visit such a crummy place?" I don't think that climate furthers the interests either of the U.S. or Canada.

I think the poster above hit the nail on the head with the comment "...rather than just assume everyone is trying to move there..." ^ Many Canadians and other foreigners find that perceived attitude somewhat insulting.

Fair enough, in regards to the comment "rather than just assume everyone is trying to move there." That comment is also born of several assumptions as well. On this forum alone I can point to numerous examples of people making the following statements, "Why would that Canadian have to move to the United States they live in Canada and have jobs and free health care", “Why would the individual have to go to school illegally in the United States they come from Sweden you know a rich country that don't need to do that in the United States." There are many more that I can find. This is in direct conflict with the fact that I have done many many cases involving people from "1st world countries” Many of those cases, involved significant work visa fraud. I am talking large companies and occupations that had significant salaries not the runoff the mill landscaper or cleaning lady. Part of the problem is that most of the people are law abiding folks so much so that it is hard for them to imagine the lengths that people just like them will go to in order to break the law. The people that tend to break Immigration laws do not look like the "typical" criminal. I also hear all the time in terms of customs laws, "do I look like a smuggler/terrorist/fill in the blank. The reality is the bad guy is spending a lot of time and effort to look like the law abiding traveler.

The fact of the matter is people that violate the Immigration and Customs laws of the United States come from all walks of life. The reasons are as varied as there are people. The reality is that if US CBP officers focused only on people from the third world countries two things would be true. One, we would miss a whole lot of violations many more than you would imagine. Two, we would be having a very different discussion right now. That discussion would focus on how unfair and inevitably racist CBP would be for focusing on third world countries.

The other fact is US Immigration law is set up in that the applicant has to prove to the officer that they fit into one of the many non-immigrant visa classifications that exist. If the applicant can not prove that to the CBP Officer, the applicant is considered an immigrant. If the applicant is considered an immigrant, the applicant needs to have an immigrant visa, as what it appears to have occurred in the story that started this thread. It is a basic premise of US Immigration Law. CBP did not write the law nor did CBP ask for the law to be this way. It came to be this way because the United States people wanted it this way as the law was written by their elected representatives and it has been that way for quite some time.

FB

.... It came to be this way because the United States people wanted it this way as the law was written by their elected representatives and it has been that way for quite some time.

FB

Actually it came to be this way because a bunch of lobbyists lined the pockets of crooked politicians along with a bunch of legislative assistants who were let loose to write bad laws - immigration, taxation, you name it. The process of writing law in the US is broken, but that is a topic for Omni.

If you took most of your post and recited it to Joe Shmo from Indiana, their eyes would glaze over and they'd pass out - I highly doubt any American wanted their immigration laws written this way or even have a merry-a$$ clue what is in the INS code, let alone how to decipher the 1.3(3) system of referencing legal code or the hoity-toidy language found within.

Outside of a bunch of right-wing, fear-mongering nitwits who think illegal immigrants from Mexico are stealing the jobs of American computer programmers, real estate agents and bus drivers, instead of picking strawberries and cleaning the toilets of said nitwits, I'd think what most Americans want is a fair and simplified set of laws and procedures governing immigration and visitation to the US and a complete about-face in terms of the 'tude demonstrated by far too many of your colleagues who do nothing more than turn off people from visiting this country and spending money here.

Yes, I know the law is as-is for now and you are required to follow the law as-is for now, but the INS, like the tax code, needs a quick trip to the toilet and a re-write from scratch....sans lobbyists and fresh-out-law-school legislative clerks who have no business being allowed to write even one sentence of a Bill.

Outside of a bunch of right-wing, fear-mongering nitwits who think illegal immigrants from Mexico are stealing the jobs of American computer programmers, real estate agents and bus drivers, instead of picking strawberries and cleaning the toilets of said nitwits, I'd think what most Americans want is a fair and simplified set of laws and procedures governing immigration and visitation to the US and a complete about-face in terms of the 'tude demonstrated by far too many of your colleagues who do nothing more than turn off people from visiting this country and spending money here.



Did you bother to read what I posted or did your eyes glaze over too? I never once mentioned illegal immigrants from Mexico. I was clearly talking about illegal immigration and visa fraud from 1st world countries. They are taken the jobs of computer programmers, real estate agents and the likes. I arrested one last week that was working in the United States as a loan officer. You are in denial if you believe that illegal immigration is only Mexicans that are just coming to work the fields. The immigration laws actually are relatively simple and are pretty black and white. US society as whole makes them grey because it suits them. This thread is case in point. The subject like it or not was in violation of the Immigration laws of the United States. However, because he wasn't the brown guy from down south it disturbed our sensibilities. I know it to be true because I see it everyday. I can tell you it is not fair in any sense of the word because there are very many people that don't fit the typical stereotypical illegal immigrant that get free pass. They are spending money yes, however some are committing the very serious crime of visa fraud. It is the Canadian NAFTA applicants that are committing visa fraud, don't take my word for it. Google a bit and you will find Computer System Analyst and Management Consultant are the biggest fraud vehicles going now. It is interesting that you used computer programmers as an occupation. There is supposed to be very few alien computer programmers because there are very few visas for them in order to protect those jobs for US Citizens. Yet, they all claim to be computer systems analyst so they can get in and the employers have no problem being complicit because it is cheaper. You are sadly mistaken if you think illegal immigration doesn't involve professional workers from first world countries. We can talk about you perception of the problem all day. However , in the end it is just your perception. I deal with the violations day in and day out. I know the real deal because I am the one making the cases and approving the cases.

FB

The other fact is US Immigration law is set up in that the applicant has to prove to the officer that they fit into one of the many non-immigrant visa classifications that exist. If the applicant can not prove that to the CBP Officer, the applicant is considered an immigrant. If the applicant is considered an immigrant, the applicant needs to have an immigrant visa, as what it appears to have occurred in the story that started this thread. It is a basic premise of US Immigration Law. CBP did not write the law nor did CBP ask for the law to be this way. It came to be this way because the United States people wanted it this way as the law was written by their elected representatives and it has been that way for quite some time.

FB

I consider myself (non-US citizen) to be much more familiar with US immigration law than an average non-citizen because I've had to deal with it so often in the last decade. The CBP nexus officer was also very impressed with my knowledge I might add :).

Before this Nexus thing - I worked in the US under a TN visa, and an H1B (both non-American resident aka worked in US but slept in Canada).

I'm getting close to retirement now.. My girls are both about to graduate from college, and I've decided to partially-retire, and work solely out of the GTA.

My problem w/ the intended immigrant clause is as follows: Why would an officer (pre-NEXUS) assume that I'm an intending immigrant, if my wife and I are simply going down to Florida for a couple of weeks, or to Vegas for a few days. I held a dual intent visa before, and I could have obtained a green card if I wanted as well.

If I really wanted to stay in the US, I could have legally done that.
We are simply two folks who want to spend some time at the beach basically, and under no circumstances interested in living there. Wouldn't TECS (when they swipe my passport) show them that I've held all these visas and I've never lived there?

I consider myself (non-US citizen) to be much more familiar with US immigration law than an average non-citizen because I've had to deal with it so often in the last decade. The CBP nexus officer was also very impressed with my knowledge I might add :).

Before this Nexus thing - I worked in the US under a TN visa, and an H1B (both non-American resident aka worked in US but slept in Canada).

I'm getting close to retirement now.. My girls are both about to graduate from college, and I've decided to partially-retire, and work solely out of the GTA.

My problem w/ the intended immigrant clause is as follows: Why would an officer (pre-NEXUS) assume that I'm an intending immigrant, if my wife and I are simply going down to Florida for a couple of weeks, or to Vegas for a few days. I held a dual intent visa before, and I could have obtained a green card if I wanted as well.

If I really wanted to stay in the US, I could have legally done that.
We are simply two folks who want to spend some time at the beach basically, and under no circumstances interested in living there. Wouldn't TECS (when they swipe my passport) show them that I've held all these visas and I've never lived there?

It may come as a surprise to you but the TN and H1B visas are the most abused and exploited work based non-immigrant visa classifications that the US has. A couple of things the TN visa ia not a dual intent visa and the H program did not start out as a dual intent program. The H1B visa became part of the H visa program in 1990 and that is when it became a dual intent visa. You are understandably making assumptions because you are a law abiding person but not every one is. US CIS reported that in 2008 21% of all H1B visas were obtained through fraudulent visa applications or applications containing errors. The numbers have not changed all that much. That is a very large percentage and it is the CBP Officers job to locate those fraudulent visas on entry. This can not be accomplished just by looking at the visa. It is found during that interview.

The H1B visa is still a temporary visa. Eventually the admission time and amount of extensions run out. When this happens, people have been known to tell the officer I am just going the beach for a few weeks. The true intent is to resume their employment. The H1B visa still calls for a geographic US Labor Certification. There are a vast amount of H1B workers who are not actually working where there labor certification is for. Again, this is most often determined by that interview. There are countless ways that both TN and H1B visas are illegally exploited as well as the other visa categories. I don't expect the average traveler to be familiar with them. However, the officer that is doing the inspection is very familiar with them and that is what he is looking for. There is absolutely no way to tell by just looking at the person. You have to ask questions to determine what someones intent is. This is made more difficult by the fact that believe it or not people lie to us. The average law abiding person is well law abiding they really don't have a concept of the lengths that someone will go to and the lies that they will tell to obtain admission and illegal employment.

I can not discuss the abilities of the computer systems that CBP employs. I can say that the capabilities of the computer systems utilized on primary differ from those used in secondary. Many believe the computer to be much more effective than it is though they are improving. The officer is much more interested in what your intent for your current visit and future intent is than what you have done in the past. This is because peoples circumstances change and what they have done in the past is not always a good indicator of what they intend to do now.

FB

Did you bother to read what I posted or did your eyes glaze over too? I never once mentioned illegal immigrants from Mexico. I was referring to the general perception Joe Shmo on the street has about illegal immigration. Joe Shmo is focused on 'brown people' and not on the intricacies of the immigration laws or the 1st world issues you pointed out.

It is the Canadian NAFTA applicants that are committing visa fraud, don't take my word for it. Google a bit and you will find Computer System Analyst and Management Consultant are the biggest fraud vehicles going now. It is interesting that you used computer programmers as an occupation. There is supposed to be very few alien computer programmers because there are very few visas for them in order to protect those jobs for US Citizens. Yet, they all claim to be computer systems analyst so they can get in and the employers have no problem being complicit because it is cheaper. IIRC, computer systems analyst and management consultant *are* legitimate job categories under the TN visa program if the applicant has the appropriate education background, experience and a firm job offer. Why does this constitute visa fraud? Are they claiming to be computer systems analysts and doing some sort of other work? The TN visa is fairly wide in covering many white-color occupations, and I support the TN visa program as plenty of Americans have used it to move to Canada and work there, so it's fairly balanced.

For me, visa fraud is not a TN applicant working a legitimate and approved work occupation, it is the Indian contracting companies scooping up thousands of H1 visas and then filling those slots at companies here in the US who are lying about the pay rates which are in fact, half of what the DOL requires for these positions. You might want to focus your attention on those folks. Both the contracting company, the visa holder *and* and US corporation are complicit in the fraud.

It may come as a surprise to you but the TN and H1B visas are the most abused and exploited work based non-immigrant visa classifications that the US has. A couple of things the TN visa ia not a dual intent visa and the H program did not start out as a dual intent program. The H1B visa became part of the H visa program in 1990 and that is when it became a dual intent visa. You are understandably making assumptions because you are a law abiding person but not every one is. US CIS reported that in 2008 21% of all H1B visas were obtained through fraudulent visa applications or applications containing errors. The numbers have not changed all that much. That is a very large percentage and it is the CBP Officers job to locate those fraudulent visas on entry. This can not be accomplished just by looking at the visa. It is found during that interview.

The H1B visa is still a temporary visa. Eventually the admission time and amount of extensions run out. When this happens, people have been known to tell the officer I am just going the beach for a few weeks. The true intent is to resume their employment. The H1B visa still calls for a geographic US Labor Certification. There are a vast amount of H1B workers who are not actually working where there labor certification is for. Again, this is most often determined by that interview. There are countless ways that both TN and H1B visas are illegally exploited as well as the other visa categories. I don't expect the average traveler to be familiar with them. However, the officer that is doing the inspection is very familiar with them and that is what he is looking for. There is absolutely no way to tell by just looking at the person. You have to ask questions to determine what someones intent is. This is made more difficult by the fact that believe it or not people lie to us. The average law abiding person is well law abiding they really don't have a concept of the lengths that someone will go to and the lies that they will tell to obtain admission and illegal employment.

I can not discuss the abilities of the computer systems that CBP employs. I can say that the capabilities of the computer systems utilized on primary differ from those used in secondary. Many believe the computer to be much more effective than it is though they are improving. The officer is much more interested in what your intent for your current visit and future intent is than what you have done in the past. This is because peoples circumstances change and what they have done in the past is not always a good indicator of what they intend to do now.

FB

Firebug - as always, your answers are great! And to be honest with you - I am quite surprised that there is such a high percentage of abuse for work visas.. I would have thought the biggest abusers are visitor visas and then the marriage visa (which is a big problem here in Canada as well). And I do have to say, that despite all the criticisms your agency receives, I wouldn't want to be in your shoes either, because I'm sure it isn't easy. The law is the law, and, as you stated earlier, all you have to do is enforce it. Intent is something that only that one person really knows, so it takes great skill to be able to detect the truth vs. lie.

This is because peoples circumstances change and what they have done in the past is not always a good indicator of what they intend to do now.

FB

Lol, please tell the car insurance company that! One accident and they punish you for 5 years.

Lol, please tell the car insurance company that! One accident and they punish you for 5 years.

In Canada.. with some insurance companies..

It depends..

Basically, some insurances don't affect you if you're in an accident, because of the good driving record, and the unlikelihood of getting into another accident..

In Canada.. with some insurance companies..

It depends..

Basically, some insurances don't affect you if you're in an accident, because of the good driving record, and the unlikelihood of getting into another accident..

Yeah, that's what we switched to.. We had TD insurance who was awful, but CAA gives us that accident forgiveness package.

Yeah, that's what we switched to.. We had TD insurance who was awful, but CAA gives us that accident forgiveness package.

Funny.. I'm on TD.. and always had great rates with them..

Do tell me the headaches that you've experience.. maybe I'm missing something?

I'm a CAA plus member as well.. so I'm all ears..:eek:

I still don't understand why there are so many hoops and hurdles for Canadians to work in the US and vice versa. I thought NAFTA was supposed to have been a 'free trade agreement' that eased considerably the rules for cross-border trade and movement of workers. It seems it just made things more difficult. Then again, it doesn't really seem like much of a FTA, does it. I'd rather have talented Canadians coming south to contribute to the economy than cheap lumber. We should have a Schengen-EU type of agreement between the US and Canada but doubt it will ever happen.

I still don't understand why there are so many hoops and hurdles for Canadians to work in the US and vice versa. I thought NAFTA was supposed to have been a 'free trade agreement' that eased considerably the rules for cross-border trade and movement of workers. It seems it just made things more difficult. Then again, it doesn't really seem like much of a FTA, does it. I'd rather have talented Canadians coming south to contribute to the economy than cheap lumber. We should have a Schengen-EU type of agreement between the US and Canada but doubt it will ever happen.

It has been bade much easier, or at least consistent, for specific groups of cross border workers.

If one does not fall into one of the preferred groups, not so much.

Funny.. I'm on TD.. and always had great rates with them..

Do tell me the headaches that you've experience.. maybe I'm missing something?

I'm a CAA plus member as well.. so I'm all ears..:eek:

Well, you live in Alberta, and car insurance rates there I'm sure are much lower than they are in southern Ontario.

Basically we had TD for years, and never purchased the accident forgiveness option, because our broker said that they'll look at the whole picture after an accident before deciding to raise rates... Well.. We had our first and only at fault accident in 2008, and our rates nearly doubled. Went to CAA (I have my home insured with them as well), and their rates are much better, the accident forgiveness isn't something extra you have to pay for, and they have superior customer service compared to TD.

We should have a Schengen-EU type of agreement between the US and Canada but doubt it will ever happen.

^. I'm all for that. Though by what has been happening in the post-9/11 years, it's heading in the opposite direction. I believe I read in a newspaper article a few months ago that the US plans to have exit-controls in place by 2013.

Hate to awaken an old (and off-topic) thread within a thread but I have to address a few things in Firebug4's reply:

In the US the sales tax is an average of 6% to 8% in Canada it is between 12% to 15%. I am not making the numbers up they are available for all to see on the Canadian government websites. The following is just a quick search and are relatively old numbers but are available for all to see.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Canada#Sales_taxes



Average is about 13% but is as low as 5% in Alberta. Note that many places in Washington State are nearly 10% and some in California push 11%.



International comparison (personal income tax)
Comparison of taxes paid by a household earning the country's average wage (as of 2005), including social security contributions paid by employer

Country………Single………..Married…….Country……….Single ………Married
……………..no children…..2 Children…………………..no children……2 children

Australia……..28.3%..............16.0%............. .Korea………..17.3%..............15.2%
Austria…..…...47.4%.............35.5%............. .Luxembourg…35.3%.............12.2%
Belgium……...55.4%..............40.3%.............M exico………18.2%..............18.2%
Canada ……….31.6%..............21.5%………Netherlands….38.6%. .............29.1%
Czech Republic.43.8%.............27.1%............New Zealand...20.5%..............14.5%
Denmark……...41.4%.............29.6%............Nor way………37.3%………..29.6%
Finland……….44.6%.……….38.4%............Poland………..4 3.6%………..42.1%
France………...50.1%.............41.7%............Por tugal………36.2%.............26.6%
Germany……...51.8%.............35.7%............Slo vakia………38.3%……….23.2%
Greece.………..38.8%.............39.2%............Spa in………….39.0%.............33.4%
Hungary………50.5%.............39.9%………Sweden……….47.9 %……….42.4%
Iceland………..29.0%.............11.0%.............Sw itzerland…..29.5%.............18.6%
Ireland.………..25.7%...............8.1%....……Turkey… ……...42.7%.............42.7%
Italy…...………45.4%.............35.2%………United Kingdom.33.5%............27.1%
Japan………….27.7%.............24.9%....……United States…...29.1%............11.9%
Source: OECD, 2005 data




Actually this table helps make my point - let me explain. It's hard to tell without getting a hold of the actual reference you used, but if we use what's in there you see that it includes personal income tax + employer social security contributions. What's more interesting is what's not included - it excludes the Medicare portion of FICA and ignores other tax differences. For example, property taxes are significantly higher (especially in the northeast) than in Canada. It's two and a half times higher than what my folks pay in Canada. There's also a personal property tax where I'm at now where one must pay tax on vehicles and boats one owns each year. Those taxes don't exist in Canada. Given the table above, and the difference in taxes that are not included, in the single taxpayer case the numbers are pretty close (even given the sales tax difference). It can get hairy if you compare deduction differences (in Canada they count from dollar 1, and you can claim things like college tuition, while in the U.S. you can claim mortgage interest and property taxes).

So the married, 2 kids case. This is a bit trickier, but one needs to look closely at the scenario - a single earner, making the average wage, with 2 kids. The U.S. permits income sharing (basically if one spouse doesn't work it's as if half of the salary goes to each spouse) where Canada does not. Is a single-earner household with two kids earning the average wage a realistic scenario? In a two-income household those numbers would pull significantly closer.



Also this is an interesting paper regarding healthcare in both countries. It is also interesting that it somewhat discounts the use of infant mortality rates and longevity as a measure of quality of healthcare. This is due to those rates being a influenced more by the difference in population and life style that is led by that population and not the quality of the healthcare.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w13429.pdf



An interesting point - however if the systems provided equal outcomes (with the Canadian system being assumed inferior) this means that lifespans and infant mortality statistics would diverge even further. Lots to study there though - I'd have to agree that this is a realm where even professional economists and health care experts could spend years.



I am well aware that the difference is money spent and time waiting for "elective procedures” However, when one needs a knee replacement, a hip replacement, or cataracts removed and has to wait months not being able to be mobile or be able to see, I am betting they don't feel like it is an elective procedure nor does it address the people I have personally spoken to as they entered the United States to receive cancer treatment because they were told to wait in Canada.



Consider this - does the fact that wait lists exist cause practitioners to recommend treatment at earlier stages? Do out-of-pocket costs like co-pays and co-insurance cause folks to defer seeking treatment when treatment is straightforward instead of complex? I won't argue that some folks feel they have to wait too long for treatment, but do they end up getting a "jump" on the diagnosis or decision to treat a condition? Again a point of study for the serious scientists, but something to consider.




I find it interesting that suit had to be filed in Quebec for someone to use private medical insurance to pay for procedures with more suits to follow.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2010/02/09/que-breast-cancer-lawsuit.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaoulli_v._Quebec_(Attorney_General)

http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/dick200512200840.asp

FB

These suits actually result from aspects of provincial health care law that were designed to basically discourage or prohibit private medical insurance for services covered by provincial health plans. The prohibition was overturned but the effect on health care delivery in Canada has been minimal (so far).

Appreciate the response - though I definitely don't agree with your position on single-payer health care you're a great resource, especially in these types of immigration/CBP threads. Big ^ for good advice around these parts.

Well, you live in Alberta, and car insurance rates there I'm sure are much lower than they are in southern Ontario.

Basically we had TD for years, and never purchased the accident forgiveness option, because our broker said that they'll look at the whole picture after an accident before deciding to raise rates... Well.. We had our first and only at fault accident in 2008, and our rates nearly doubled. Went to CAA (I have my home insured with them as well), and their rates are much better, the accident forgiveness isn't something extra you have to pay for, and they have superior customer service compared to TD.

Hmmm.. I should maybe check out the rates with CAA..

I've been pretty happy with TD.. my insurance has been more than reasonable.. and I did shop around for awhile..

AB doesn't have lower rates because of legislation.. I'm not sure why we would have lower rates compared to ON

Hmmm.. I should maybe check out the rates with CAA..

I've been pretty happy with TD.. my insurance has been more than reasonable.. and I did shop around for awhile..

AB doesn't have lower rates because of legislation.. I'm not sure why we would have lower rates compared to ON

The rates are lower because there's less cars basically. The population of the GTA is about a third of Canada. I would imagine that's why.. In any event, car insurance here is outrageous.

We have four cars, and four drivers (two of which are under 25). My oldest daughter graduates university this year, so I hope she goes on her own car insurance policy soon. :)

The rates are lower because there's less cars basically. The population of the GTA is about a third of Canada. I would imagine that's why.. In any event, car insurance here is outrageous.

We have four cars, and four drivers (two of which are under 25). My oldest daughter graduates university this year, so I hope she goes on her own car insurance policy soon. :)

The under 25 insurance is outrageous imo.. even in AB.:)

I was driving a 560SEL Benz when I was 18.. and insurance quotes were like over 10K a year.. I settled for something like 4K a year..

The under 25 insurance is outrageous imo.. even in AB.:)
\

Outrageous, and they refuse to lower it! None of them had accidents or tickets, nor do they have brand new cars. The last excuse they gave me was that they haven't held their full G licence for five years yet.. Bunch of BS.

Outrageous, and they refuse to lower it! None of them had accidents or tickets, nor do they have brand new cars. The last excuse they gave me was that they haven't held their full G licence for five years yet.. Bunch of BS.

Reform has been called for for years..

I think they used to differentiate females from males in AB.. but found it was discriminating and grouped the females and males in the same group.. so pays the same rates..

Well, we know that females are more responsible than their male counterparts 18 to 25 age group..;)

Reform has been called for for years..

I think they used to differentiate females from males in AB.. but found it was discriminating and grouped the females and males in the same group.. so pays the same rates..

This is all well and good but why should any insurance company be allowed to use actuarial tables at all then?

Why should insurance companies be allowed to increase the rates for a driver who's gotten a couple of speeding tickets or been at fault in an accident?

Why should I, as an official senior-citizen geezer, have to pay more for life insurance than some young whippersnapper in his 40s?

Why, to keep this thread on topic, ;) should that Canadian cottage owner have to pay more for insurance on his cottage if he's away from it for extended periods of time or if it's located more than xx kilometers from a fire hydrant?

Having watched ICBC, the British Columbia government car insurance monopoly, "reform" insurance in B.C. in the early 70s, I'm well aware of the politics of making things "more fair," whether I'm Peter or Paul (http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/rob+Peter+to+pay+Paul). One person's reform is another person's rip-off.

Reform has been called for for years..

I think they used to differentiate females from males in AB.. but found it was discriminating and grouped the females and males in the same group.. so pays the same rates..

Well, we know that females are more responsible than their male counterparts 18 to 25 age group..;)

They differentiate between males and females in ON as well. Is it fair? Not all males are bad drivers, and conversely, not all females are good drivers. But... The fact that the 16-25 age group is more high risk is true.
Your rates are also higher if you are not married, I don't know if you knew that or not. Which is pure discrimination in my opinion.

They differentiate between males and females in ON as well. Is it fair? Not all males are bad drivers, and conversely, not all females are good drivers. But... The fact that the 16-25 age group is more high risk is true.
Your rates are also higher if you are not married, I don't know if you knew that or not. Which is pure discrimination in my opinion.

I've heard that AB gov abolished the differentiation between males and females between 18 - 25.. so in fact females pay more, because it averages out..

Funny, reading the Calgary Sun today.. yes Ontario average auto insurance is $1,400.. but guess who's second?.. Alberta at $1,080.. Seems like most of the other provinces are at $800 or lower..

So I guess I should have a beef with what's going on too.;)

But, I sort of know why auto insurance is higher in Alberta.. When you're rolling in Hummers, Audis, Mercedes, Bmers.. at a higher than national rate.. your insurance should be reflective of that too.:)

I've heard that AB gov abolished the differentiation between males and females between 18 - 25.. so in fact females pay more, because it averages out..

Funny, reading the Calgary Sun today.. yes Ontario average auto insurance is $1,400.. but guess who's second?.. Alberta at $1,080.. Seems like most of the other provinces are at $800 or lower..

So I guess I should have a beef with what's going on too.;)

But, I sort of know why auto insurance is higher in Alberta.. When you're rolling in Hummers, Audis, Mercedes, Bmers.. at a higher than national rate.. your insurance should be reflective of that too.:)

I wish there was gov't car insurance, like there is in Quebec and Manitoba and BC.

The same expensive cars are on the roads here as well. And that should mean slightly higher premiums. However, it shouldn't be double the premium folks in other provinces pay.

I wish there was gov't car insurance, like there is in Quebec and Manitoba and BC.

The same expensive cars are on the roads here as well. And that should mean slightly higher premiums. However, it shouldn't be double the premium folks in other provinces pay.

Sat and read another article today over supper..

Jogged my memory here in AB insurance companies need to propose and approve increases with government regulators.. This happened awhile back..

I think AB had the highest auto insurance rates in the country awhile back..