Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re:FW: Canada/US border insecurity

Expand Messages
  • Chris Kelishes
    I know terrorism is a serious threat but, man, can the government quit with the fear-mongering in the wilderness at least for just a minute? What a way to
    Message 1 of 12 , Sep 30, 2009
    • 0 Attachment

      I know terrorism is a serious threat but, man, can the government quit with the fear-mongering in the wilderness at least for just a minute? What a way to spend a nice hike seeing ominous signs all along the trail….

    • Lowell G. McManus
      The politicians in Washington are so politically correct that they think they have to treat the northern border the same as the southern border. I don t argue
      Message 2 of 12 , Oct 1, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        The politicians in Washington are so politically correct that they think they have to treat the northern border the same as the southern border.  I don't argue with the security (because terrorists can sneak in anywhere, and especially where least suspected), but the dire signs are a bit over the top.
         
        Lowell G. McManus
        Eagle Pass, Texas, USA
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 1:40 AM
        Subject: [borderpoint] Re:FW: Canada/US border insecurity

        I know terrorism is a serious threat but, man, can the government quit with the fear-mongering in the wilderness at least for just a minute? What a way to spend a nice hike seeing ominous signs all along the trail….

      • Dallen Timothy
        Lowell, in my experience, the US incoming border-crossing procedures on the US-Canada border have always been harsher, pickier and more meticulous than
        Message 3 of 12 , Oct 1, 2009
        • 0 Attachment

          Lowell, in my experience, the US incoming border-crossing procedures on the US-Canada border have always been harsher, pickier and more meticulous than crossing into the US from Mexico . Likewise the northern border has always been (at least since I started crossing regularly in the early 1990s) as meticulously patrolled and monitored as the southern border, if not more at certain places and at certain times. It is by far the longest DEFENDED border in the world!!!! I’ll send another email in a few minutes telling of my experiences last week at the US-Canada border and today at the US-Mexico border.

          Dallen

           

           

           


          From: borderpoint@yahoogroups.com [mailto: borderpoint@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Lowell G. McManus
          Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 7:21 AM
          To: borderpoint@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [borderpoint] Re:FW: Canada/US border insecurity

           

           

          The politicians in Washington are so politically correct that they think they have to treat the northern border the same as the southern border.  I don't argue with the security (because terrorists can sneak in anywhere, and especially where least suspected), but the dire signs are a bit over the top.

           

          Lowell G. McManus
          Eagle Pass , Texas , USA

           

          ----- Original Message -----

          Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 1:40 AM

          Subject: [borderpoint] Re:FW: Canada/US border insecurity

           

          I know terrorism is a serious threat but, man, can the government quit with the fear-mongering in the wilderness at least for just a minute? What a way to spend a nice hike seeing ominous signs all along the trail….

        • David Kendall
          ... This reminds me - I ve long heard the term thrown around (as have you all, obviously) longest undefended border in the world referring to CAUS - false as
          Message 4 of 12 , Oct 2, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            > It is by far
            > the longest DEFENDED border in the world!!!!

            This reminds me - I've long heard the term thrown around (as have you all, obviously) "longest undefended border in the world" referring to CAUS - false as Dallen points out, but it's reminded me of a question that's been on my mind for a long time, long before I joined this group (but was still a geography nut, I was probably reading atlases in the womb ... ), why don't they just say the longest border in the world? At the time I was thinking this, the Sino-Soviet border was possibly longer, but the breakup of the USSR has put an end to that. Do they say it to emphasize the friendship between our two countries? (And, despite the heavy border patrol, on CAUS, we are still close allies. "Good fences make good neighbours" and all that). And, if we do actually succeed in getting the world to stop using that silly term, can we at least refer to CAUS as the longest border in the world? Is this counting all of CAUS? Can only the contiguous part (ie the northern border of the lower 48) still be considered the longest border in the world?

            --
            David Kendall
            dhkendall@...
            blog: http://thecanuckguy.livejournal.com/
          • Chris Merlo
            On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 8:58 AM, David Kendall wrote: This reminds me - I ve long heard the term thrown around (as have you all, ... I
            Message 5 of 12 , Oct 2, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 8:58 AM, David Kendall <dhkendall@...> wrote:

              This reminds me - I've long heard the term thrown around (as have you all, obviously) "longest undefended border in the world" referring to CAUS - false as Dallen points out [...]

              I always thought it was called "undefended" because there is no permanent military presence on either side, not because no one's watching it.
              -c
            • Lowell G. McManus
              ... There you go! That s what it s intended to mean. The two nations are friendly allies and no threat to each other, so there s no need for defense. Thus,
              Message 6 of 12 , Oct 2, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Chris Merlo wrote:
                 
                > I always thought it was called "undefended" because there is no
                permanent military presence on either side, not because no one's watching it.
                 
                There you go!  That's what it's intended to mean.  The two nations are friendly allies and no threat to each other, so there's no need for defense.  Thus, "undefended."  If there were no customs or immigration controls, it would be "uncontrolled," which is not the case.  It is still undefended, but it is controlled (and increasingly so, as are all of the USA's land borders, airports, and seaports).
                 
                Lowell G. McManus
                Eagle Pass, Texas, USA
                 
                 
              • Michael D. Adams
                I don t know. With the expansion of Tim Horton s south of the border.maybe Canada is considering invading the U.S., eh? :) When Canadian Tire and Wal-Mart
                Message 7 of 12 , Oct 3, 2009
                • 0 Attachment

                  I don’t know.  With the expansion of Tim Horton’s south of the border…maybe Canada is considering invading the U.S., eh?  :)

                   

                  When Canadian Tire and Wal-Mart start having pitched battles over the American market, I fear that no one will be safe.

                   

                  --
                  Michael D. Adams  -- Windsor, Connecticut -- mda@...

                   

                   

                  From: borderpoint@yahoogroups.com [mailto:borderpoint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Lowell G. McManus
                  Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 9:59 PM
                  To: borderpoint@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: RE: [borderpoint] CAUS - longest border? [Was Re:FW: Canada/US border insecurity]

                   




                  Chris Merlo wrote:

                   

                  > I always thought it was called "undefended" because there is no permanent military presence on either side, not because no one's watching it.

                   

                  There you go!  That's what it's intended to mean.  The two nations are friendly allies and no threat to each other, so there's no need for defense.  Thus, "undefended."  If there were no customs or immigration controls, it would be "uncontrolled," which is not the case.  It is still undefended, but it is controlled (and increasingly so, as are all of the USA's land borders, airports, and seaports).

                   

                  Lowell G. McManus
                  Eagle Pass, Texas, USA

                   

                   




                • Christopher Merlo
                  On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Michael D. Adams wrote: I don’t know. With the expansion of Tim Horton’s south of the border…maybe
                  Message 8 of 12 , Oct 3, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Michael D. Adams <mda@...> wrote:

                    I don’t know.  With the expansion of Tim Horton’s south of the border…maybe Canada is considering invading the U.S., eh?  :)

                    I know you're joking -- at least, I assume you are :) -- but the "invasion" of Tim Horton's into the former Dunkin' Donuts locations around Midtown Manhattan, including in Penn Station, was not welcomed fondly by lots of commuters.  I used to commute through Penn Station every day, and I would not have dealt well with losing my daily DD coffee.

                    So, maybe they're done considering, and that was the first sign of aggression.  :)
                  • Dallen Timothy
                    While I understand what a couple of you were saying yesterday about a defended border, I don t agree. I think a defended border is more than the mere presence
                    Message 9 of 12 , Oct 3, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment

                      While I understand what a couple of you were saying yesterday about a defended border, I don’t agree. I think a defended border is more than the mere presence of military troops waiting to quell some kind of insurgency or large-scale advance by a foreign power. Lasers, fences, guard towers, helicopters, patrol dogs and SUVs, etc, are indeed signs of a well-defended border, not just a guarded one. The Liechtenstein-Switzerland border is ‘guarded’ (at least it was up until very recently) by police patrols, regulations, signage, etc, as most of the world’s borders are, but I wouldn’t necessarily call them ‘defended’. The US-Canada border (at least one side) is absolutely and without doubt a defended border—the CBP is always on the defensive against smugglers, illegal crossers, or others who could potentially do harm to the US, and CBP does in fact use high-tech and old-fashioned defense mechanisms, sans tanks (although these could probably also be deployed if needed). I think we’re really missing something if we suggest that a defended border is only a hostile border (e.g. N-S Korea ) with a strong military presence that aims to keep out a large-scale invasion by a foreign power. Maybe it’s better to think of it more conceptually as scales or levels of defendedness, or what it is that a country is defending its borders against. It’s important to remember that guarded borders are obviously not mutually exclusive from defended borders; even merely ‘guarded’ borders are being defended against something.

                       

                      It is obvious that the US-Canada border is a heavily defended border, not just guarded, and to perpetuate the old cliché about it being the world’s longest undefended border is a farce and disingenuous. Incidentally, it was MUCH, MUCH easier for me to cross the Turkey-Syria, Lebanon-Syria, and North Korea-South Korea borders recently than it has been lately to cross into the United States from Canada .

                       

                      (Now if the farce noted above were only as funny as the Royal Canadian Air Farce….I love that show and miss it a lot from the days when we lived in Canada).

                       

                       

                      Dallen

                    • Chris Merlo
                      On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Dallen Timothy wrote: While I understand what a couple of you were saying yesterday about a ... I
                      Message 10 of 12 , Oct 3, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Dallen Timothy <Dallen.Timothy@...> wrote:

                        While I understand what a couple of you were saying yesterday about a defended border, I don’t agree. I think a defended border is more than the mere presence of military troops waiting to quell some kind of insurgency or large-scale advance by a foreign power. Lasers, fences, guard towers, helicopters, patrol dogs and SUVs, etc, are indeed signs of a well-defended border, not just a guarded one.

                        I think (and I'm no scholar on the subject; this is just one observer's opinion) that the difference lies in defending against Canada per se vs. defending against individuals -- smugglers, "terrorists", etc. -- who happen to have gotten here *from* Canada.  Yes, there are paramilitary forces and equipment all over the border, but they aren't enemies of, or likely targets of, any of their Canadian counterparts; rather, the two governments work together to control the border.
                        -c
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.