you are CANADIAN. "what do you do for a living" is an IMMIGRATION question. it's not any canadian's business what i do for a living. if i am going to germany, i would be happy to answer as i am a guest to that nation and it is being asked to determine if i have enough money to get by in germany, and if i plan on living in germany. in canada, i don't owe that information to ANYONE. i only owe the authorities the inspection of my goods without obstruction.

you're right! also note that all these acts pertain to the movement of YOUR GOODS, not YOUR SELF. they can't charge me under the criminal code for anything beyond my goods or any such actions that occur on Canadian soil (except that sex tourism act under the CC). the citizenship act is completely irrelevant as citizenship is not dictated by any law or statute. if i am a citizen of canada, my existence of a canadian is not dictated by a law. it's an inherent RIGHT. they can't ask me anything pertaining to that unless i got Alzheimer's in Jamaica, am wearing a potato sack for pants, and flushed my documents down the toilet en route.

also, last time i checked, not answering anything to your goods doesn't constitute contravention of "answering truthfully". truthfulness works on a binary system: lie/truth. not answering is neither. i presented my goods. the goods speak for themselves. i'm lawful, and there is no question about this because i don't import seeds, meat, fertilizer, or any obscure goods beyond gruyere cheese under 20kg/$20 per import for my croque madame's, so therefore, i do not have to answer. they can play whatever games they want, including the "you're sitting on the bench reading a magazine instead of engaging in my pissing match! i'm going to charge you with hindrance!" game that the middle aged women love playing.

bso's have no power when it comes to my body entering canada, and pretty limited power considering how compliant i am. the problem officers are those who want seizures, and they don't get them from me, so eventually they wear themselves out. then there are the mature ones in their 40s who realize that i'm complaint and they realize that 'the game' is a stupid to get into. we all know these types, the officers who care about law breakers over gucci smugglers, know that someone is 90% to be legal if their suitcase doesn't contain 50kg of cocaine, who go home and enjoy their 4 days off instead of going on flyertalk trolling for posts, etcetc.

Talk to someone who works actually with infectious disease and they will tell you how stupid those nurses that lecture the CBSA every year are. note that they are nurses, not MDs or infectious disease specialists. you can't get anything through an E311 card that was in someone's mouth. and i'm sure that if you could, those kevlar gloves would shield yourself from any possible threat (including the threat of insecurity, yeah?)

And I know the black gloves that they wear. They are the slash proof gloves given for tactical reasons, such as when a fight is about to happen. They're worn by tons of BSofficers at point, and it looks just horrible. Here's something your buddies in secondary will never realize: they look extremely officious and unprofessional. Those gloves are for combative situations, not performing paperwork duties.

your stats (obviously made up because you don't realize the false-negatives that get through you) don't account for postal seizures such as the case that i indicated. the red screen (indicating a hit) will not show up for Sam Smith's cocaine postal seizure recorded under S Smith in 1995. of course, if a targeter is looking for Sam Smith passport number ABC12345, iPIL will show a red screen for Sam Smith ABC12345. that's not disputed.

I'm glad our law enforcers know what's the best for all of us, particularly when it comes down to our rights. CSIS and RCMP are such outstanding organizations that truly care about my liberty, and nothing else. Therefore, we shouldn't ask questions. We should just delegate our concerns to them. Then everyone will be happy and we wouldn't need lawyers/activists/other pain in the asses. I'm glad people who enforce laws have such a broad understanding of various perspectives. But who cares about those perspectives? The authorities always have our best interests in mind. I like how you think, cBSaguy! Imagine how much better our nation would be if all the angry psychopaths with tin foil wrapped around the head turned into normal people "not terribly concerned about cBSa reporting information potentially relevant to national security".

The cBSa has a proud history of looking out for our best interests. Just look at cases like Little Sisters v. Canada Customs.

i never knew that putting my suitcases down in secondary, going beyond the requests of the BSo by emptying my pockets, and then grabbing a magazine (lawfully purchased in canada, of course, because those american magazines full of heinous non-canadian ads are of threat to our nation), sitting on a bench, and reading said magazine until the inspection is completed, OR standing there and not answering a single question a BSo asked all constituted "molesting" "hindering" or "preventing" a BSo from inspecting MY GOODS.
....until we had a BSo interpret the law, of course. I still wonder why cBSa constantly blow drug seizure cases in court?

I get the "i'm gonna charge you with hindrance unless you stop pissing me off!" line every fifth time through secondary and it gets old. I'm not surprised you pulled that one. Next time I should smuggle in a dictionary, have it seized, and I'll bookmark certain pages so the BSos can look at it while it's awaiting destruction in the queen's warehouse.

you're missing the point. there are no grounds for inspection at a port. they can send every single person in or just the ones wearing any purple for inspection. there is no reason to find cause or grounds. this stems into why i don't answer majority of the questions asked; they can inspect my goods but they certainly cannot ask me where i have been, what i do for a living, a business card, etc. a cop can't just ask me all those questions, either. and no one has rebutted that, except with anecdotes about how canadians freely support their information being submitted for CSIS inspection, or how i'm subject to the importation of seeds act

they will never answer that. this is canada. government first. government's coffers second. CEUDA third. people who pay the government (and indirectly, CEUDA), fourth.

CEUDA's not too bad-unlike some of their members-IMO.

trust me, it's best just to hand your docs and say nothing beyond "hullo". they don't care.
"how's it going!?! ", "how are you1?!?! " is something a person in that position gets every 30 seconds, and it gets irritating. it's phony. you don't care how they are doing since their shift started at 4am, so why the f--- would you ask it?
contrary to popular belief, CBP & cBSa officers don't refer someone on the basis of "they didn't smile enough" or "they didn't ask me how my day was going! i really wanted to tell them about how i got along with my manager for once this year!"
they're going to base you on a) how you look b) how thick your passport is c) where you are coming from, d) whether you checked "business", "study", or "personal, and this all combines into e) in what manner do you respond to their questions. (eye contact, sweat, manner in which statements are said, etc).
the "hi how are you!?" doesn't mean squat, son. it would work against you, if anything.

you'll be surprised how much more through and professional the screeners in Pakistan and India are (the latter of which is a wing of the military), in contrast, to.. uh, CATSA.

The 10k rule is so horribly misunderstood. It's for MONEY LAUNDERING PURPOSES ONLY. It's not for the tax man, it's not for the EI investigators. It's for FINTRAC. Nothing else. Asking the 10k question via the air stream is stupid, and you should reply by telling them to read the card. Then you should ask them if they are new. They're obviously new if they're asking you a question that was asked and documented on the piece of paper in front of them.

if you really want to play civil disobedience, insist that you pay $5 tax. that way, they lose money because it costs them something like $20-25 per transaction to collect tax at the windows in ports of entry.

1) rip off the price tags
2) mail yourself the receipts
3) go the extra mile and iron the factory folding marks
=you just removed any grounds for cBSa to take action against you for smuggling. hell, you could not do 3) and they still wouldn't have the grounds ["i purchased these a while ago in the USA, imported them under my exemption, and haven't gotten around to wearing them yet"]

it's pretty easy to get around cBSa.

finally, a voice of reason :-:

the BSofficers in canada likely didn't care because the immigration officer in mexico couldn't find any room in your passport for him to stamp, and then told you to get another 48 page passport when you get home.

this coming from the same agency that uses labradors in their dog team over any other breed for....what reason?
image is a serious matter. just like the dork wearing kevlar gloves at point to collect pieces of paper, there are certain things BSo's do that convey a VERY bad image to the public, without realizing it, of course.
combine that with someone who tried getting help off-peak from the customs counter at an airport and was automatically told to call the BiS line, how do you expect your agency to overcome a poor (officious) public image?

it happens every year or so. they wear the vests, they have the gloves, but when those may be useful, they cheese it. nothing new.

WT_F are you talking about!?!?! These aren't views, these are LAWS!!!!!!