Canada / U.S. relations

Mars_B4_Moon · 2007-03-09 15:16:01

The only real way to change this is if Canada becomes a part of the United States.

Yes we should bomb Canada as part of this war on terror, or at least make them become a 51st state

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-03-10 04:45:18

Yes we should bomb Canada as part of this war on terror, or at least make them become a 51st state

Can't wait can you. What a warmonger you are! How will destroying Canada help us?

Er, why don't you reply to something I just said rather than referring to previous posts a long time ago and quoting them out of context.

Liberals have a way of just tuning out whenever they meet something they don't agree with. I never advocated bombing Canada, never, never never! Misquoting me to suggest I do is just plain malicious! I could quote you as saying anything, that is just fiddling with text and proves nothing. Are you going to talk about what were talking about now, or are we going to misquote each other and play your silly word games?

Liberals avoid the argument by misdirecting or changing the subject.

dicktice · 2007-03-10 12:55:25

Words have a tendency to come back and haunt you, Tom. That's why you should think before you write your political barbs, which frankly are becoming a bore. Stick to technical arguments regardless nationality, creed, or political affiliation, and you can't go wrong, eh?

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-03-10 13:53:45

Words have a tendency to come back and haunt you, Tom. That's why you should think before you write your political barbs, which frankly are becoming a bore. Stick to technical arguments regardless nationality, creed, or political affiliation, and you can't go wrong, eh?

I NEVER SAID WE SHOULD BOMB CANADA!
I was merely saying how we could open up the border with Canada and how it might come about, and this scum bag see fit to assassinate my character and implies that I advocate wholesale bombing of Canada, and I never said any such thing!

Yes, indeed words can come back and haunt you, especially when somebody takes them out of context from way back and uses it to imply that you take a position that you do not.

I did not do anything to justify this character assassination, I was explaining how to open up the border so that it would be acceptable to both countries and under what conditions that would occur. We are not going to suddenly disregard all our national security requirements just to satisfy a few Canadian whiners. If you want to get something you must give something in return, no ones going to give you something just because you ask for it, that is a simple law of economics. Apparently Mars_B4_Moon gets offended by this conversation so he just derails it, not wanting to get into the points were discusing. I'll tell you what were not discussing, we are not discussing the US and Canada going to War!

Notice that his quote he took was not from what I previously said up above. I could do the same with his sarcasm and use it at some point later to protray him as some kind of war monger. It doesn't matter what he says, I could put anything between two quotes and attribute it to him, or I could take something he said and use it out of context as a position he advocated. What is clear to me though is that Mars_B4_Moon doesn't want to talk about what we're talking about now, he instead wants to sabotage the whole thread. I say to him, "If you not interested get out! Don't sabotage other people's threads or try to derail them with irrelevant gibberish or character assassinations!"

Palomar · 2007-03-10 14:58:58

Hayden Christensen is Canadian.

Oh baby baby...

That's good enough for me.

dicktice · 2007-03-10 21:50:47

Tom, your thin skin is visible for all to see--so why not drop it? Lots of good stuff to discuss as soon as you get a grip, eh?

Cindy, I've got a rotten old shirt just like that!

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-03-11 08:32:06

Tom, your thin skin is visible for all to see--so why not drop it? Lots of good stuff to discuss as soon as you get a grip, eh?
Cindy, I've got a rotten old shirt just like that!

Ok, back to the subject we we're discussing before Mars-B4-Moon so rudely interupted us and for those of you who don't recall, my last statement before the character assassination attempt of his was this:

I think if we can just coordinate our immigration and importation policies then we need not check the US/Canadian border, it would mean giving up soverignty on both sides though. National governments are always reluctant to cede national power. We would have to set up an agency that is answerable to both national governments with a shared power structure. I see no reason why this wouldn't work, but I want to make sure that no terrorists can get into Canada that would threaten US citizens, and I'm sure the Canadians would want to make sure of the same things for their citizens too before we open up the border for unlimited unregulated travel. I think my concerns on this matter are reasonable, and not "garbage". You want me to just wave my hands and ignore them, sorry but I can't. You want open borders between the US and Canada, then security concerns of both countries must be addressed first, that is the price, and I believe most Canadians would find that to be a reasonable request.
I think a veto system would work. You would have Canadian and US Immigration officials at every entry point into the US and Canada, each would have access to a data base from his government and each would have a veto on whether to let a prospective visitor or immigrant in. An external foreigner would need to get visa approval from both countries before he would be allowed into either. This would be a more restricive by default immigration policy. You would need Canadian officials at Kennedy Airport for example, and if the Canadian dosen't like somebidy coming through, he can send him back to his point of origin. Like wise a US agent would be stationed in Toronto, and if somebody coming into Canada looks to dangerous, he would get to refuse him entry into Canada. The FBI and the Canadian Police would also have to share databases so they can track down and apprehend wanted fugitives, and if someone commits a crime in the US that carries the Death Penalty, then Canada would have to hand him over if apprehended up there. Likewise if someone was evading Canadian taxes and is hiding out in the US, the US would hand him over to Canada, it wouldn't matter if he wasn't violating laws in the United States.
Canadians might not agree with some US laws, but if someone violates then in the US and then hides in Canada, then the Canadians would have to hand him over to face US justice, and it works the otherway too.

RobertDyck · 2007-03-12 00:41:57

Tom, why should Canada let the United States or anyone else dictate what our immigration policy should be? Canada is a sovereign country, we make our own policy. And we make a point of being polite and courteous, welcoming to immigrants from all over the world. That gains us a good reputation, making friends everywhere. Those friendships mean we don't have people so pissed-off at us that they feel they have to kill themselves in a terrorist act to stop us. Specifically, when a terrorist organization does commit the offence of terrorism, we blame just them, not everyone one in the world. "Racial profiling" is a means of painting everyone of Arab descent as a terrorist, despite the fact the vast majority of Arabs are just as peace-loving as us. Our immigration policy does include criminal background checks, and we do exclude members of known terrorist organizations. We aren't going to exclude someone from Morocco, for example, just because al Qaeda mounted a terrorist attack on our ally.

Your comments support an idea I've been hatching lately. Russia wants to buy our grain to feed their people, and they want to use the port of Churchill. We in Manitoba want an ocean port, but Churchill is on Hudson's Bay, which freezes over in winter. Right now grain is transported by train to Thunderbay, at the west end of Lake Superior, where it's transferred to a lake ship. The St. Lawrence Sea Way has locks that permit good size ships to travel from the Great Lakes to the Atlantic, where they can proceed across the ocean, but modern ocean cargo ships are larger than will fit through the locks. Churchill has a deep water port that can accommodate the largest grain ships. So Russia has offered to use their big nuclear powered icebreakers to open a shipping channel. Everyone in Manitoba wants to accept this offer, and I've been mentioning to politicians that we do so. One politician mentioned the "guys down south" (Americans) don't want that to happen. I propose Canada accept Russia's offer anyway.

The other idea is more related to the Mars Society. I've argued before that space exploration provides the same impetus for technological development as war, but without the horrendous cost. Canada has been a world leader in peace, while being a modern industrialized economy and a modern democracy. I propose that Canada get over its national inferiority complex, and lead the way to peaceful use of technology. We should ask Russia to launch 2 Canadian satellites in exchange for Canada paying for restoration of infrastructure for the Energia rocket, and to gain access to it. Then Canada design and build the spacecraft for a human mission to Mars, launched on an Energia rocket. Robert Zubrin said Mars Direct would require 2 Saturn V size rockets, and designed the Ares launch vehicle to be that size using Shuttle parts, but Energia would require 3 launches per mission. Now America is arguing with itself whether to return to the Moon using a mission plan that can only be called Apollo on steroids. While America argues, Canada will go directly to Mars. We'll use all Canadian equipment; the only Russian part will be the big rocket. If Russia wants a seat for a cosmonaut on the first human mission to Mars, they can pay for it by providing the rocket at their expense. We could add an additional level of security to this plan by encouraging Russia to launch the Science Power Platform for ISS themselves, and do so with the Ptichka space shuttle. That's the only Buran class orbiter that still exists. Canada could provide at Canadian expense a CanadArm (NASA calls it the Remote Manipulator System or RMS) along with all auxiliary equipment and cosmonaut training to use it. Once the Russian space shuttle is operational again, then Russia will be motivated to maintain the Energia launch vehicle since it lifts their shuttle. Canada can't afford to bail them out a second time, once restored they'll have to maintain it themselves.

It may be ironic considering Canada is part of NATO and NORAD, and the Soviet Union was our enemy during the Cold War. However, the Soviet Union doesn't exist any more. Russia is a trading partner now. Establishing friendly relations would be consistent with Canada's "boy scout" foreign policy. It would also lead others in the world to work with Russia as a partner rather than trying to return to a Cold War mentality. But as a strategic position, if the government of the United States is going to continue to challenge our sovereignty over the arctic and militarize our border, then it's in our best interest to establish a friendly working relationship with Russia.

I just came from the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the Liberal Party of Canada (Manitoba). That's the provincial chunk of the federal party, not the provincial party. It was an eye-opening experience, and frustrating in some ways. There are many individuals within the party, with varying views. I was distressed to see so many who want to go "tax and spend". However, our party leader has 3 "pillars" to his election platform: social justice, environmental sustainability, and economic prosperity. I feel voters want it all, they don't want to make a choice of right vs. left, so I'm glad he did this. I was a delegate for him at the leadership convention. My focus is economic prosperity; you could call me a "blue Liberal". In Canada the Conservative party adopted blue as their party colour because it's seen as the colour of business; the Liberal party colour is red. This has become the opposite of American party colours, so when I say "blue Liberal" I mean toward the right of many others in my party. I want reduced spending and reduced taxes. But one policy resolution I submitted was to accept Russia's offer for an icebreaker.

So Tom, do you still think it's a good idea to push Canada around, demand we follow George W.'s paranoid reaction to 9/11 with the threat of arming the border if we don't?

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-03-12 10:34:08

Tom, why should Canada let the United States or anyone else dictate what our immigration policy should be?

because they want open borders with the US where they can travel back and forth unhindered, and with no checking of passports or IDs and no questions asked. If we open the borders completely with Canada, we must close the border with the rest of the world a little more to compensate, that is the price, because there is a reason we stop people at our border. There are some people we don't want getting into our country because they are dangerous to us. If we check them at your border, then that removes the requirement that we check them at the border seperating the US and Canada, don't you see? Canadians also get to do the same thing at our border with Mexico for instance. If there is a Mexican or some other foreigner that they don't want getting into their country, they have the power to stop him from getting into the United States and thus have access to Canada through the free and open border, that is the price. Do you simply think we should relax our security and get nothing in return just to make a few Canadian's happy? A border in part defines what separates Canada from the US. If both countries are to give up individual control over who enters from Canada or the US, then they must establish mutual contol over who enters from the rest of the world, doesn't that make sense to you?

Canada is a sovereign country, we make our own policy.

and so is the United States of America, if you want a certain policy from us, you would have to give us something in return, we worry about terrorists entering our country, maybe you don't but we do. If you want us to open our borders to you, you have to address our concerns about terrorism, and a formal agreement where each country gets to guard the other's border seems a reasonable way to go about it. Lets face it, we both want the same sorts of immigrants, don't we, no one really wants a terrorist coming into his country, the only problem we have is if one country thinks someone is a terrorist and the other does not, this reduces our security both ways.

And we make a point of being polite and courteous, welcoming to immigrants from all over the world. That gains us a good reputation, making friends everywhere. Those friendships mean we don't have people so pissed-off at us that they feel they have to kill themselves in a terrorist act to stop us. Specifically, when a terrorist organization does commit the offence of terrorism, we blame just them, not everyone one in the world.

So you want us to give into terrorist demands and establish a syndocracy in our country for them to govern us with.

"Racial profiling" is a means of painting everyone of Arab descent as a terrorist, despite the fact the vast majority of Arabs are just as peace-loving as us.

You are making two assumptions here, that we measure people's foreheads to assess the probability of their being terrorists, and that the najority of Arabs are peace loving. If the majority of Arabs were peace loving, we wouldn't have problems with arab terrorists, just like we don't have problems with Hindus or Buddists.

Our immigration policy does include criminal background checks, and we do exclude members of known terrorist organizations. We aren't going to exclude someone from Morocco, for example, just because al Qaeda mounted a terrorist attack on our ally.

Thus you are asking us to relax our security requirements just so Canadians can travel more freely across our border, what do we get in return for this? We are a soverign country too, and we don't let foreigners dictate our foreign policies. If you want an open border with the US, some compromises will have to be made. If you are unprepared to make compromises and subbornly insist that you get your way all the way, you'll get nowhere. If all you want to do is complain about the US border, but get nothing done then that's fine, but if you want to see some progress, you must come to the table with something to bargain with, and I don't mean hostages.

You put it quite succinctly, "We aren't going to exclude someone from Morocco, for example, just because al Qaeda mounted a terrorist attack on our ally." Well maybe you should. If you want something from us, you have to take our concerns about terrorism seriously, even if Canadians aren't concerned. If you aren't concerned about what we're concerned about, then why should we be concerned about what your concerned about? It works both ways you know. If your concern is free and open commerce with the US, then that's one thing, but if you want to control US foreign policy or tell us how we should protect ourselves, that is another.

Your comments support an idea I've been hatching lately. Russia wants to buy our grain to feed their people, and they want to use the port of Churchill. We in Manitoba want an ocean port, but Churchill is on Hudson's Bay, which freezes over in winter. Right now grain is transported by train to Thunderbay, at the west end of Lake Superior, where it's transferred to a lake ship. The St. Lawrence Sea Way has locks that permit good size ships to travel from the Great Lakes to the Atlantic, where they can proceed across the ocean, but modern ocean cargo ships are larger than will fit through the locks. Churchill has a deep water port that can accommodate the largest grain ships. So Russia has offered to use their big nuclear powered icebreakers to open a shipping channel. Everyone in Manitoba wants to accept this offer, and I've been mentioning to politicians that we do so. One politician mentioned the "guys down south" (Americans) don't want that to happen. I propose Canada accept Russia's offer anyway.

You can be stubborn, but there is a price. You must understand that you must give if you want to get something from us, its not all about just what you want.

The other idea is more related to the Mars Society. I've argued before that space exploration provides the same impetus for technological development as war, but without the horrendous cost. Canada has been a world leader in peace, while being a modern industrialized economy and a modern democracy. I propose that Canada get over its national inferiority complex, and lead the way to peaceful use of technology. We should ask Russia to launch 2 Canadian satellites in exchange for Canada paying for restoration of infrastructure for the Energia rocket, and to gain access to it. Then Canada design and build the spacecraft for a human mission to Mars, launched on an Energia rocket. Robert Zubrin said Mars Direct would require 2 Saturn V size rockets, and designed the Ares launch vehicle to be that size using Shuttle parts, but Energia would require 3 launches per mission. Now America is arguing with itself whether to return to the Moon using a mission plan that can only be called Apollo on steroids. While America argues, Canada will go directly to Mars. We'll use all Canadian equipment; the only Russian part will be the big rocket. If Russia wants a seat for a cosmonaut on the first human mission to Mars, they can pay for it by providing the rocket at their expense. We could add an additional level of security to this plan by encouraging Russia to launch the Science Power Platform for ISS themselves, and do so with the Ptichka space shuttle. That's the only Buran class orbiter that still exists. Canada could provide at Canadian expense a CanadArm (NASA calls it the Remote Manipulator System or RMS) along with all auxiliary equipment and cosmonaut training to use it. Once the Russian space shuttle is operational again, then Russia will be motivated to maintain the Energia launch vehicle since it lifts their shuttle. Canada can't afford to bail them out a second time, once restored they'll have to maintain it themselves.

As an independent country, that's you perogative to establish joint missions with the Russians. If you refuse to understand our concerns about Russia being run by a dictator, and Russian foreign policy trying to undermine us and hlep the Iranians develop nuclear weapons, then you can't expect much understanding from us, if you ask us to open our border with your country. To put it succinctly, if you don't respect our desires, we won't respect yours. Russia is no friend to democracy, and it has proven to be no friend of ours. If you enter into partnerships with our adversaries and still expect to be our friends afterwards, you may be in for a rude awakening. I hope Russia gets its democracy back, but making friends with Russia's dictator is not the same as making friends with the Russian people, it worked the same with Ferdinand Marcos of the Phillipeans by the way.

It may be ironic considering Canada is part of NATO and NORAD, and the Soviet Union was our enemy during the Cold War. However, the Soviet Union doesn't exist any more. Russia is a trading partner now. Establishing friendly relations would be consistent with Canada's "boy scout" foreign policy. It would also lead others in the world to work with Russia as a partner rather than trying to return to a Cold War mentality. But as a strategic position, if the government of the United States is going to continue to challenge our sovereignty over the arctic and militarize our border, then it's in our best interest to establish a friendly working relationship with Russia.
I just came from the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the Liberal Party of Canada (Manitoba). That's the provincial chunk of the federal party, not the provincial party. It was an eye-opening experience, and frustrating in some ways. There are many individuals within the party, with varying views. I was distressed to see so many who want to go "tax and spend". However, our party leader has 3 "pillars" to his election platform: social justice, environmental sustainability, and economic prosperity. I feel voters want it all, they don't want to make a choice of right vs. left, so I'm glad he did this. I was a delegate for him at the leadership convention. My focus is economic prosperity; you could call me a "blue Liberal". In Canada the Conservative party adopted blue as their party colour because it's seen as the colour of business; the Liberal party colour is red. This has become the opposite of American party colours, so when I say "blue Liberal" I mean toward the right of many others in my party. I want reduced spending and reduced taxes. But one policy resolution I submitted was to accept Russia's offer for an icebreaker.
So Tom, do you still think it's a good idea to push Canada around, demand we follow George W.'s paranoid reaction to 9/11 with the threat of arming the border if we don't?

You consider it paranoia, I saw the buildings burn and it wasn't my imagination. You don't drive by the hole in the ground just about every day, I do. You can pretend it didn't happen, but I can't. Being a smaller country, you don't have the same concerns we do, you don't have your army deployed the same places we do. If you want an open border with us, you have to understand our geopolitical concerns, if you just ignore them, you won't get anywhere. It is not very hard to try and put yourselves in our shoes and try to understand us, but you don't. We are not so very different on an individual basis. I would be happy to have a mutual understanding between out two countries so we can have freerer traffic across our mutual border. What we ask is not a whole lot compared to the benefits of this increased cross border traffic, if Russia is a more important partner to you than the US, then that's your countries decision, but as the French say, "You can't have your cake and eat it too."

clark · 2007-03-12 11:10:11

First, why would you need a nuclear powered ice breaker to break ice in the middle of winter to ship grain? I'm not much of a farmer, but it seems the grain would be ready for market prior to winter, thus obviating the need of an ice breaker in winter. Also, Canada has some pristine environment up there and Russia a shaky nuclear record.

Secondly, arguing with americans about immigration, border control, or travelling beyond their own borders is an exercise in futility. 95% of Americans do not own a passport (I choose 'own' because the processing fees involved are not cheap). The reason I cite this is to demonstrate that most Americans have no concept of what it means to travel through international borders.

Generally, this is a sad point about my countrymen, but as certain conversations demonstrate, this can be a boon too. Lord only knows how the American people whould be evaluated among the rest of the world if they were to meet some of them first hand.

Third, Tom, just shut up about the WTC. You're not the only person who faces the giant hole in the ground, and there are a sight more number of people who have better grounds to be upset by it than you, and they seem to be dealing with it in a more mature manner.

This debate is asnine by the way. Candian border patrol and US law enforcement have worked together, continue to work together, and collaborate in greater ways every day. Candian border patrol now has access to US databases containing information for criminal background checks on people going into Canada from the US. US border patrol agents receive information from their candain counter parts as well, and both sides of the border patrol the same waterways.

Only a jack ass would get lost in the specifics of national soverignty issues when the job of border patrol agents, regardless of nationality, is to keep their homeland safe and stop criminals. But whatever.

I think a more frutiful topic of conversation, if you must talk about this, is in what ways America and Canada might work together to make the job of border patrol easier for the people who actually do it. What tools can they be given to make them more effective? What process could be put in place that would allow them to do more with less?

But that is a conversation. It appears some others here want a conversation. Too bad you are getting sucked into a pointless argument, eh.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-03-12 13:11:50

I only mention the WTC because RobertDyck says our concern about terrorism is all overblown and that we should just give his country what it wants while getting nothing in return and loosening our border security with no compensatory agreements. I think it makes no difference in one customs inspector is Canadian and one American or they are both American or Both Canadian, our criterion for who and what we want in our countries and don't want are similar enough to coincide most of the time, but during those rare exceptions we need a double veto system with regards to accepting certain individuals or shipments. For instance a Canadian port might receive a certain shipment of oranges that contain an orange blight which would do certain damage to crops in Florida and California, and since Canada does not grow oranges, it might let the shipment right through since it has no reason by itself not to. if there was an American inspector there, he would cast his veto to protect American Orange crops.

About 95% of Americans not having passports well for one, the USA is a large country and many of its people find no reason to leave or have a passport, and might not find the money for international travel in any case, and secondly many of the news reports make Americans feel distictly unwelcome, and they in turn decide to have little to do with the rest of the World as well. All those people protesting George Bush's visit to Columbia and Brazil, well, they might decide not to go to Columbia and Brazil as well. What was George Bush trying to do in Barzil anyway, bring jobs to Brazilian Sugar growers for one, yet all the Brazilians are concerned about is that the Iraqis aren't being properly oppressed by a strongman dictator like they should be, elections in Iraq is a terrible thing to them, and they'd like a return to the Status Quo, they want the Punch and Judy "Kill the Jews" terrorist puppet show to continue because they find it so entertaining.

clark · 2007-03-12 14:34:21

Yes, by all means. Protect us from the Orange Blight menace.

Won't someone think of the Citrus!

Next thing ya know, it won't be safe to eat in taco bell anymore!

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-03-12 23:05:19

Yes, by all means. Protect us from the Orange Blight menace.
Won't someone think of the Citrus!
Next thing ya know, it won't be safe to eat in taco bell anymore!

You wouldn't make light of it if you were an orange grower, that would be your bread and butter then.

Palomar · 2007-03-13 06:35:35

Cindy, I've got a rotten old shirt just like that!

Rotten, or girls trying to tear it off him? I can't imagine why any woman would want to do that to Hayden's shirt, but whatever...

Hmmmm...why do I get the feeling that neither Tom nor Robert will ever convince the other?

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-03-13 11:24:42

Robert started this post complaining about American Protectionism at the US Border here:

A number of Americans have asked why there appears to be criticism from Canada. The war against Iraq is one reason, trade is another. Trade is a sore sticking point. But here are a couple news articles of really offensive actions that can only permanently break down relations.
US is building a wall along the Canadian-U.S. border:
1,800 towers along the border, anywhere from 24 to 60 metres high
unmanned aerial vehicles or UAVs, big ones such as Global Hawk and Predator
blimps, able to launch small UAVs
seismic sensors capable of detecting a tunnel being dug
infrared and motion detectors
a border fence in highly populated areas is still a consideration
machine-guns on coast guard vessels in the Great Lakes
U.S. to create 'virtual fence' for borders
Blimps over the border
U.S. puts machine-guns on Great Lakes coast guard vessels
Great Lakes machine guns raise ire in Canada
::Edit:: The last news article now requires a subscription. Here is a copy that doesn't.
Who does the US government think Canada is? We are not Mexico, we are not like Mexico, we are not a third world country. It's highly offensive to treat Canada like Mexico. If you think there’s illegal immigration from Canada, you’re dreaming. Welfare pays more than illegal unskilled labour jobs. The only reason for a Canadian to move to the US is a highly paid professional job, and that requires income tax. Filing income tax requires either a work visa or landed immigrant card (green card). That paperwork is what’s important, not building an iron curtain along what was the longest undefended border in the world. If the U.S. really wants to crack down on illegal immigration, require employers to send a photocopy of the employee's Social Security card with the income tax paperwork for every new employee. When I worked in the U.S. my Social Security card prominently stated "requires INS approval" or something like that. This is a clear indication that a work visa is required. I had a TN (Temporary Nafta) work visa. A photocopy also ensures the Social Security number is valid, not just made up to fill in boxes on a form. Arming the border is dangerous and offensive. It's only a matter of time before a gun happy guard itching to use his new big gun shoots someone.

I have tried to address Robert's grievances, but when I do, he just gets offended. I agree with him, I too would like to get rid of that pesky old border that stands in the way of free commerce and travel, but it appears that ole Robert just wants to complain and needs something to complain about, if I attempt to find a solution to his problem, he just gets mad. Some people just like to whine and complain about America, I don't know why. I've noticed too that Jimmy Carter was much more beloved by the World when he was out of power than when he was in power, when they just considered him weak, curious that. So many people in the world say they want the United States to do this or that for them, but when the United States tries to address their issues, they are never satisfied, they just love scapegoating America and that's it.

dicktice · 2007-03-13 17:09:08

Good Lord, Robert--I had no idea that the mexican wall was that extensive! It makes the Berlin Wall look like a picnic in the park! What did you search for to uncover the details of this latest Bush insanity? It's obscene....

RobertDyck · 2007-03-13 17:22:34

Reference links are in the post. I found this simply on CBC's news of the day. I read their website almost every day.

dicktice · 2007-03-13 17:36:34

Out of curiosity: do you think there's time to complete it before Bush is out of office? Would it be torn down after he's gone, I wonder? What must the Mexicans think? Could it happen up here along the northern border? Naw--that'd be crazy, right?

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-03-14 01:24:12

Out of curiosity: do you think there's time to complete it before Bush is out of office? Would it be torn down after he's gone, I wonder? What must the Mexicans think? Could it happen up here along the northern border? Naw--that'd be crazy, right?

Do you want to tear it down and unite the three parts of North America into one country?

As a matter of fact, if you have a country, you also have a border, and that country will want to control that border regulating who and what comes and goes, why is that such a difficult concept for you to grasp?

RobertDyck · 2007-03-14 05:35:56

Tom, grow up. Why don't you answer exactly how old you are. Your comments obviously demonstrate you're not that mature. I could ignore stuff like that if the politicians in the US didn't adhere to such drivvel. Canada is a sovereign country, we aren't going to join the US but do wish to be friends. The US invaded Canada twice in our history, twice that I know of, but we got over it and our countries became good friends. Why ruin it now? Why piss off your friends?

The US now requires their own citizens to have a passport to re-enter their country, which means if a US citizen enters Canada without one they can't get back. This is adversely affecting tourism and trade. The US does more trade with Canada than any other country, yet George W. is bent on pissing us off.

Dictice, you asked how soon they would begin arming the border. This article is in this morning's local newspaper, the Winnipeg Free Press.
Grand Forks to get Northern Border Air Wing branch in July

I notice the article mentions North Dakota senator Byron Dorgan. He opposes free trade with anyone for anything. He fought the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the World Trade Organization, a bilateral agreement with China, and now the Central American Free Trade Area (CAFTA). Free trade has its flaws, but it's all or nothing, you can't do it part way. US businessmen wanted access to Canadian markets, and access to Canadian resources. The price is free trade both ways; Canada gets access to American markets. Without free trade you don't get access to Canadian oil, natural gas, electricity or the ability to export goods to Canada, operate business within Canada, or buy Canadian businesses. The US government has demanded all that but complains every time a Canadian business succeeds in the US market.

Byron Dorgan also complains constantly about the Canadian Wheat Board. The reason is his state has a lot of farmers so it's easy to blame Canada. Reality is Canada grows wheat with high gluten, that makes great pasta but sticky/mushy bread. The US grows wheat with low gluten; makes great bread but pasta crumbles. Ok, sounds like a great reason for trade. Well, it turns out it's more complicated. North Dakota can grow the same varieties of wheat as Canada, but US federal trade subsidies ensure all the high gluten wheat goes to Europe. US pasta manufacturers buy Canadian wheat because they can't get any of the domestic stuff. You could stop exporting to Europe, we would export to Europe instead. The result would be the same total from North America, but the US wants to engage in a trade war with Europe. Rather than dealing with all that complication, Byron Dorgan likes to claim the Canadian Wheat Board is responsible for all North Dakota farmers' woes. That's a cheap, underhanded way to buy votes. So now he's behind this move to arm the border. Uh huh.

clark · 2007-03-14 05:53:26

Point of clarification!

US Politicans do not actually adhere to such drivel. US Politicans pander to those who adhere to such drivel!

No offense Robert, but most Americans couldn't care less about Canada, Canadian politics, or the valuable insight you bring regarding the intricasies of agricultural trade policy.

Canada is a place where 19 year olds go to get drunk, occassionaly creates actors and singers that Americans assume are american, and plays hockey. And it is a 50-50 chance an American can identify Canada on a map.

The US, at least as far as I am aware, has always required US citizens to show their passport upon re-entry into the country. I think what is new is that it is now required when travelling to Canada. I believe previously, US citizens visiting Canada or Mexico could simply declare their US citizenship for re-entry.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-03-14 09:07:32

Tom, grow up. Why don't you answer exactly how old you are. Your comments obviously demonstrate you're not that mature. I could ignore stuff like that if the politicians in the US didn't adhere to such drivvel. Canada is a sovereign country, we aren't going to join the US but do wish to be friends. The US invaded Canada twice in our history, twice that I know of, but we got over it and our countries became good friends. Why ruin it now? Why piss off your friends?

If you like your seperateness, then why do you complain about the border?

What you seem to require of us is that we give up some of our security to accomodate you and get nothing in return.

If you want to travel from the United States to Canada as if you travel from one part of your country to another, you seem to want some sort of unification.

If you want two governments, but no border between them, then what you'd have is Canada loosining up our customs and immigration policy and Canadian authorities aren't accountable to the US people. What is it you want, us to just forget about the terrorists menace and let them kill us to satisfy you Canadians?

In order to have homeland security, our government has to control it, we can not farm it out to other governments. I don't understand how you can just wave the problem away and pretend it does not exist, that is just plain stupid. If you don't want to have a border, that means you want unification; if you don't want unification, that means you want the border. All countries have borders and all countries regulate them. If you don't like my solution, tough, then stop the whining!

The US now requires their own citizens to have a passport to re-enter their country, which means if a US citizen enters Canada without one they can't get back. This is adversely affecting tourism and trade. The US does more trade with Canada than any other country, yet George W. is bent on pissing us off.

I got a passport, they are not hard to get, you just have to show a birth certificate and pay a nominal fee, I don't know what problem you have. If we didn't require US citizens to show their IDs before reentry into the United States, how are we supposed to know that they are not actually Canadian citizens? We don't want Canadian citizens voting in our elections, just like I'm sure you don't want millions of American citizens pouring into your country and voting the Conservatives into your Parliment, do you?

Dictice, you asked how soon they would begin arming the border. This article is in this morning's local newspaper, the Winnipeg Free Press.
Grand Forks to get Northern Border Air Wing branch in July
I notice the article mentions North Dakota senator Byron Dorgan. He opposes free trade with anyone for anything. He fought the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the World Trade Organization, a bilateral agreement with China, and now the Central American Free Trade Area (CAFTA). Free trade has its flaws, but it's all or nothing, you can't do it part way. US businessmen wanted access to Canadian markets, and access to Canadian resources. The price is free trade both ways; Canada gets access to American markets. Without free trade you don't get access to Canadian oil, natural gas, electricity or the ability to export goods to Canada, operate business within Canada, or buy Canadian businesses. The US government has demanded all that but complains every time a Canadian business succeeds in the US market.

As you said, its not perfect, but you sure do complain. Its unnatural to expect a country to give up control of its borders or not to guard them, it doesn't mean we can't have free trade, but we do have to inspect them. There are products in Canada that are legal there and not legal here. Do you want Americans brining in their legal Assault rifles into Canada to go hunting? We don't want your people bringing in Pot either as that is illegal in our country, you can complain about protectionism if we don't legalize pot when you legalize pot, but that is just an example of our requirement that we control our border.

Byron Dorgan also complains constantly about the Canadian Wheat Board. The reason is his state has a lot of farmers so it's easy to blame Canada. Reality is Canada grows wheat with high gluten, that makes great pasta but sticky/mushy bread. The US grows wheat with low gluten; makes great bread but pasta crumbles. Ok, sounds like a great reason for trade. Well, it turns out it's more complicated. North Dakota can grow the same varieties of wheat as Canada, but US federal trade subsidies ensure all the high gluten wheat goes to Europe. US pasta manufacturers buy Canadian wheat because they can't get any of the domestic stuff. You could stop exporting to Europe, we would export to Europe instead. The result would be the same total from North America, but the US wants to engage in a trade war with Europe. Rather than dealing with all that complication, Byron Dorgan likes to claim the Canadian Wheat Board is responsible for all North Dakota farmers' woes. That's a cheap, underhanded way to buy votes. So now he's behind this move to arm the border. Uh huh.

If you want a North American Union, when we'll need something like Europe has, which is a North American Union government, if you don't like that, then the US/Canada border will never be as free as the borders in Europe. The price you pay for open borders is reduced sovereignty of the National governments in favor of a supernational one or at least supernational organizations. I gave you an example of a Supernational organization that uses the double veto system, but you complain about it and call it imperialism. I've explained that it would go both ways but still you complain. I'm sorry, but I'm not ready to become less secure in my country in order to accomodate free trade and open borders, if there is to be free trade and open borders, then their must be compensatory agreements to prevent outsiders from entering Canada and thus gaining access to the United States without out permission. I'm sorry we can't just trust the Canadian government to always do what's in our best interests, we need a formal agreement, and that's all I'm asking for, so will you please stop calling me a racist or an imperialist without cause, at least listen to what I'm saying for content before you automatically berate me.

clark · 2007-03-14 11:22:23

I would like to point out that 'countries' are not natural, but in actuality, are the result of artifical and arbitrary concepts generated from a predisposition of human beings to define their individual place within a social hieararchy.

There is no 'I', without 'You', just as there is no 'Us' without 'Them'.

As such, Tom, it is not unnatural to expect a country to give up control of its border or not to guard them because a country is not natural to begin with and is a societal construct, and being that society can and does construct a wide range of ideas, and has demonstrated an ability in modifying said constructs when it suits their interest, I think we can safely assume that you are once again talking out of your rear end.

But that said, I fully support armed guards and large walls along the borders. Not because I wish to prevent people from getting into America. I simply want assurances that if and when i leave, there will be something tangible to prevent people like you from leaving.

And Tom, there is more involved in getting a US passport than what you list. You have to have pictures taken, sign several forms, submit several forms of identification, and it takes several weeks to process.

When travelling between Mexico and California, a US citizen declares that they are a US citizen. No id is required, at least that was always my experience a few years ago. But whatever.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-03-14 11:45:57

I would like to point out that 'countries' are not natural, but in actuality, are the result of artifical and arbitrary concepts generated from a predisposition of human beings to define their individual place within a social hieararchy.

Nations have been around since the beginning of recorded history. I don't know where you get the idea that they are a new phenominon that has only recently been thought of.

Without nations there is no law, and no authority to turn to when laws are broken. People tend not to like to live in environments where somebody can rob them or murder them and there is no recourse but to steal back what has been stolen or to seek vengence for murders. With no authority to turn to, people have no recourse but to seek "justice" for themselves in what ever way the wronged party perceives "justice". Nations embody a set of laws and those laws are in effect over the territory of the nation. If we were to make two nations into one, we'd have to rewrite the laws so that they are common for the territories of both former nations, you can have federalism so that you have sets of laws specific to certian regions, but to maximize trade, you need a common set of laws to expidete the efficiency of one market place as opposed to two.

There is no 'I', without 'You', just as there is no 'Us' without 'Them'.
As such, Tom, it is not unnatural to expect a country to give up control of its border or not to guard them because a country is not natural to begin with and is a societal construct, and being that society can and does construct a wide range of ideas, and has demonstrated an ability in modifying said constructs when it suits their interest, I think we can safely assume that you are once again talking out of your rear end.

I don't know where you get these ideas, but humans are individuals, some will attempt to break the laws if they think they can get away with it. if you propose we simple trust each other and stop commiting crimes, that works fine until someone enters the community who decides to take advantage of the lack of authority. Your asking nationstates to give up authority over the border, and are therefore making it easier for criminals and terrorists to evade the authority, if they can go from one territory where they are wanted by the government to another territory where they are not. this situation tends to undermine the authority of governments on both sides of the border, especially when laws are broken in one country, but the other country decides not to hand over the criminal because it does not agree with the other nation's law. An example is the Death Penalty. Certain crime in the US call for the Death Penalty - someone is murdered and the murderer escapes to Canada. the US government has proof that he is guilty and wants to bring him to trial, but the Canadian government refuses to hand him over because he may face the death penalty. Well the Canadians don't get to write our laws, and if the criminal escapes to Canada and the border is not guarded, then he gets away with murder, the only recourse the family of the murder victim has is to send out an assassin to exact vengence in Canada.

But that said, I fully support armed guards and large walls along the borders. Not because I wish to prevent people from getting into America. I simply want assurances that if and when i leave, there will be something tangible to prevent people like you from leaving.
And Tom, there is more involved in getting a US passport than what you list. You have to have pictures taken, sign several forms, submit several forms of identification, and it takes several weeks to process.

I have had no trouble getting my passport, I don't see why that should be a problem, and passports only have to be renewed once per decade.

When travelling between Mexico and California, a US citizen declares that they are a US citizen. No id is required, at least that was always my experience a few years ago. But whatever.

Would you want me to go into your bank and withdraw money from your account, and before the bank hands me your money, they ask me for ID and I tell them, I'm Clark and that's good enough for them?

I don't think so.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-03-13 11:32:12

The land of Science, Writing and Magna Carta becomes the Orwellian Empire with a Prince exposed by pedophile island scandals?

UK gov unveils plan for nationwide digital identity scheme
https://www.itpro.co.uk/business/policy … government

Canadians support actions against Russia over Ukraine, but have economic concerns: poll

https://globalnews.ca/news/8674701/ukra … psos-poll/

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-03-13 11:37:45)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2007-03-09 15:16:01

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#127 2007-03-10 04:45:18

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#128 2007-03-10 12:55:25

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#129 2007-03-10 13:53:45

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#130 2007-03-10 14:58:58

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#131 2007-03-10 21:50:47

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#132 2007-03-11 08:32:06

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#133 2007-03-12 00:41:57

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#134 2007-03-12 10:34:08

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#135 2007-03-12 11:10:11

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#136 2007-03-12 13:11:50

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#137 2007-03-12 14:34:21

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#138 2007-03-12 23:05:19

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#139 2007-03-13 06:35:35

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#140 2007-03-13 11:24:42

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#141 2007-03-13 17:09:08

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#142 2007-03-13 17:22:34

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#143 2007-03-13 17:36:34

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#144 2007-03-14 01:24:12

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#145 2007-03-14 05:35:56

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#146 2007-03-14 05:53:26

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#147 2007-03-14 09:07:32

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#148 2007-03-14 11:22:23

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#149 2007-03-14 11:45:57

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#150 2022-03-13 11:32:12

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

Board footer