Toronto Escorts

U.S. Border Guards Are About To Receive Alarmingly Broad Powers On Canadian Soil

Charlemagne

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2017
15,451
2,483
113
Sarah E. Leamon

THE BLOG

U.S. Border Guards Are About To Receive Alarmingly Broad Powers On Canadian Soil

Bill C-23 empowers foreign officials while eroding the rights and freedoms of our own citizens.

01/11/2018 10:51 EST

A controversial Liberal bill, Bill C-23, which has been popularly dubbed the Pre-Clearance Act, has received royal assent. It is set to officially become law.

The Pre-Clearance Act relates to the powers afforded to U.S. border guards operating on Canadian soil. These border guards work in pre-clearance zones at Canadian points of departure to the U.S., like the Vancouver International Airport.

Bill C-23 seeks to replace and expand provisions of the previous legislation governing pre-clearance zones between the United States and Canada. In so doing, it will expand the existing powers of U.S. border guards and even add new ones.

Under existing Canadian laws, U.S. border guards' authority on Canadian soil is restrained. They are not allowed to carry sidearms or strip search Canadian citizens. Their powers to detain Canadian citizens on Canadian soil are also limited.

The new law, however, will allow U.S. border guards to carry sidearms in pre-clearance zones where Canadian officials are also authorized to do so. It will also enable them to conduct strip searches in circumstances where a Canadian officer is either unwilling or unable to do so.

The language surrounding strip searches in Bill C-23 has attracted some criticism and concern for being overly broad.

There are obvious human rights concerns with respect to this portion of the bill.

The use of the words "unwilling or unable" contemplates a wide variety of possible situations, many of which are beyond circumstances in which a Canadian official is simply unavailable. The language appears to authorize U.S. border guards to conduct invasive strip searches even in circumstances where Canadian officials would deem such action unnecessary or inappropriate. There are obvious human rights concerns with respect to this portion of the bill.

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the Pre-Clearance Act, however, is the expanded power to detain travellers granted to U.S. border guards under this bill.

Once it passes into law, U.S. officials will be empowered to detain Canadian citizens who attempt to gain entry to the United States but subsequently change their minds prior to doing so. In simpler terms, this means that an individual being questioned by U.S. Customs and Border Protection staff would no longer be permitted to simply withdraw from the process if they felt uncomfortable or unwilling to continue.

They would be unable to leave the pre-clearance zone and abandon their intention to travel. Instead, they would be detained and investigated further by U.S. officials.

Many Canadians have significant concerns about how these laws could impact them. The Iranian Canadian Congress, a nonprofit, nonreligious and nonpartisan organization, wrote to our government when the bill was first introduced. The group cautioned about the very real implications that could be faced by religious, ethnic and racial minorities once this bill passes into law.

Private citizens have also expressed concerns, saying that this bill erodes the rights of Canadians while prioritizing American interests.

And while Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale are well aware of the mounting controversy around Bill C-23, they stand strongly behind it in spite of public concern.

Trudeau has defended the bill, saying that it must be passed in the best interests of Canadians and Canadian travellers. He has emphasized the safety and convenience of pre-clearance zones. He has said that these laws are necessary in order to uphold border security while also facilitating expedient, easy travel.

But his assurances have been met with skepticism by many who are less concerned with convenience and more concerned with human rights. After all, Bill C-23 seems to compromise the rights of Canadian citizens on Canadian soil. It empowers foreign officials while eroding the rights and freedoms of our own citizens.

Concerns about being interrogated, detained or turned away at borders based on race, religion, ethnicity or birthplace are only compounded by the fact that this law is being passed at a time when discriminatory practices at points of travel appear to be on the rise.

This is particularly so given the volatile political environment south of our border. With President Donald Trump's discriminatory travel bans still working their way through U.S. courts, the rights of many travellers to cross the border hang precariously in the balance — and nothing is certain...

Except the passing of Bill C-23.

Perhaps the only comforting aspect about this inevitable, impending law is the fact that Canadian citizens will still be afforded charter protections while in Canada. This applies to pre-clearance zones and any action taken by U.S. officials, who must conduct themselves in accordance with Canadian laws.

However, this is a cold comfort for many who fear that Canadian laws are no longer on their side.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
The whole preclearance program should be scrapped.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
The whole preclearance program should be scrapped.
I'm inclined to agree. back in the days before the terrorists won, when Canadians and Americans crossed our border like real neighbours, with only the most cursory checks it was easy to set up and administer. But in the current climate of [paranoia and suspicion, keeping the Excited Staes feeling safe, so we can have the convenience of flying direct to Myrtle Beach without first landing at a port of entry has become equivalent to giving them extra-territorial authority in our airports.

Not to mention it burdens us travellers and our airport authorities and governments with two sets of ever more pricey and elaborate customs facilities and security screening. If the US border officials can detain me in US custody before I've even left my home Canada, how is that any better for me than if they detain me when I land in Seattle? At least there US taxpayers would be covering the costs.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
I’ve used this system in Toronto.

Isn’t this really to facilitate travel from Canada to the US?
 

FAST

Banned
Mar 12, 2004
10,069
1
0
A question,... is the facility at the airport used for US preboarding,... a US jurisdiction ?, as in embassies for example,... probably not he correct terminology,... but I would think most here would get the point of my question.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,773
3
0
This has been discussed before. Canadians cannot be arrested by U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agents in Canada.

As the article states Canadians attempting to enter the U.S.A. who arouse suspicion, and then say that they no longer wish to enter the U.S. could continue to be questioned until U.S. Customs and Border Protection is satisfied and indeed they might even request the presence of the RCMP depending upon what they find.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,773
3
0
The whole preclearance program should be scrapped.
Most Canadians, however, find preclearance a real benefit. Rather than having their flights limited to only those airports in the U.S. which are Border Ports (have customs and immigration) and then being thrown into the customs and immigration scrum along with most other international flights.

However, should Canada wish to ask to do away with preclearance, the President might feel offended, most in the U.S. could care less.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,773
3
0
A question,... is the facility at the airport used for US preboarding,... a US jurisdiction ?, as in embassies for example,... probably not he correct terminology,... but I would think most here would get the point of my question.
No not in the sense of it being extra-territorial the way an Embassy or Consulate is. Further see # 6 two above this.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
Most Canadians, however, find preclearance a real benefit. Rather than having their flights limited to only those airports in the U.S. which are Border Ports (have customs and immigration) and then being thrown into the customs and immigration scrum along with most other international flights.

However, should Canada wish to ask to do away with preclearance, the President might feel offended, most in the U.S. could care less.
Most canadians care about territorial sovereignty. Of course, you would be happy to give up canadian sovereignty to USA.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,773
3
0
Danmand, if you believe the majority of the population are with you, absolutely pressure the Government to immediately abandon this policy!
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Most Canadians, however, find preclearance a real benefit. Rather than having their flights limited to only those airports in the U.S. which are Border Ports (have customs and immigration) and then being thrown into the customs and immigration scrum along with most other international flights.

However, should Canada wish to ask to do away with preclearance, the President might feel offended, most in the U.S. could care less.
Having to endure two stupidly elaborate and invasive screenings (not to mention the defective technology involved) just to get out of our own country hardly seems an attractive trade-off compared to splitting them one here, one in your country, at the expense of your taxpayers and airport facilities. You might even establish one or two additional Ports of Entry to better collect our travelling loonies.

As I said, the pre-screening made attractive good sense when the US was a welcoming place, but as that country has become ever more paranoid — 'needing' armed agents at Canadian airports — it seems the better plan would be to have you run your show, your way, on your soil rather than give up more of ours.

LBJ's fable of the Camel and the Tent comes to mind.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,773
3
0
LBJ's fable of the Camel and the Tent comes to mind.
Oldjones you and Danmand can contact your M.P.(s) as previously posted if that many people object. . .

What on earth parable is that? I've heard of LBJ saying that it was better to have J. Edgar Hoover inside the tent than outside, and then there is the true story of LBJ and the camel cart drive, and of course Trudeau pere's famous statement about sleeping next to an elephant. But the above?
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Oldjones you and Danmand can contact your M.P.(s) as previously posted if that many people object. . .

What on earth parable is that? I've heard of LBJ saying that it was better to have J. Edgar Hoover inside the tent than outside, and then there is the true story of LBJ and the camel cart drive, and of course Trudeau pere's famous statement about sleeping next to an elephant. But the above?
Oooh! You got me.

The fable tells of the Camel on a cold and bitter night asking if it could just put its nose in the tent to warm. Then moaning its ears were freezing, and once its head was warm asking if it could just bring its front legs in so its feet would be well for tomorrow's travel. Finally, it pointed out that all the generosity of its Master would be wasted if its hind feet froze, and moved entirely inside. Forcing its Master out into the cold.

The fact that LBJ's Camel stories aren't reported to have included that one doesn't make it less apposite to the present topic, but I did indeed confuse it with his Hoover reference. Camels all look alike to me.
 

IM469

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2012
10,848
2,078
113
Most canadians care about territorial sovereignty. Of course, you would be happy to give up canadian sovereignty to USA.
If anyone wants to check - (I'm too lazy) but I understand this is a bi-lateral agreement to facilitate travel between the two countries and Canada could set-up the same system in the US but there our too many ports of entry to make it feasible.

If you are a business traveller, the ability to pre-check through US immigration and customs, then fly anywhere in the US is great. The idea this is the tip of an invading force or surrendering our sovereignty is lost on me.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
If anyone wants to check - (I'm too lazy) but I understand this is a bi-lateral agreement to facilitate travel between the two countries and Canada could set-up the same system in the US but there our too many ports of entry to make it feasible.

If you are a business traveller, the ability to pre-check through US immigration and customs, then fly anywhere in the US is great. The idea this is the tip of an invading force or surrendering our sovereignty is lost on me.
For frequent flyers going every which where maybe. But I'd still rather split all that wasteful, invasive, badly administered security, immigration and customs crap into two more digestible separate bites, one departing Canada, the other arriving Stateside. It is how it works returning, and it's a far better experience.

The issue of American agents using American laws to detain, arrest and hold Canadians in their own country is much nastier, but until there's an incident, the convo will all be about convenience factors like yours.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,716
17,562
113
If anyone wants to check - (I'm too lazy) but I understand this is a bi-lateral agreement to facilitate travel between the two countries and Canada could set-up the same system in the US but there our too many ports of entry to make it feasible.

If you are a business traveller, the ability to pre-check through US immigration and customs, then fly anywhere in the US is great. The idea this is the tip of an invading force or surrendering our sovereignty is lost on me.
Sure, if you have no problem being arrested by Americans while you're still in Canada.
Nothing wrong with that, eh?
 

IM469

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2012
10,848
2,078
113
Sure, if you have no problem being arrested by Americans while you're still in Canada.
Nothing wrong with that, eh?
Arrested or detained for further questioning ? I'm a little unclear about that.

I am trying to board a flight which puts me in the US so I think it is a little weird to complain about US border agent efforts to protect their country. If you want the same questions posed by border agents in the US itself - fly out of Buffalo. If US border agents present a problem - I'd have second thoughts about going.
 

FAST

Banned
Mar 12, 2004
10,069
1
0
Arrested or detained for further questioning ? I'm a little unclear about that.

I am trying to board a flight which puts me in the US so I think it is a little weird to complain about US border agent efforts to protect their country. If you want the same questions posed by border agents in the US itself - fly out of Buffalo. If US border agents present a problem - I'd have second thoughts about going.
Obviously,... but not to the brain dead here,... flying out of T.O to the US with pre boarding,... is the safest way to go.

To further simplify for the brain dead here,... one would be much better off being detained in Canada by US boarder agents,... than after you landed in Texas.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Obviously,... but not to the brain dead here,... flying out of T.O to the US with pre boarding,... is the safest way to go.

To further simplify for the brain dead here,... one would be much better off being detained in Canada by US boarder agents,... than after you landed in Texas.
It used to be that US Agents here had no powers of detention, but they felt inadequately supported in their work, compared to their fellows in Texas and thus we agreed to 'improve' their effectiveness.

Why anyone would expect that process to stop until all US Agents everywher have the same powers and authority I do not know; If I ran Homeland Security I certainly wouldn't tolerate any such Stop line for long. But as a Canadian, concerned with who runs my country I want that line drawn bright and clear.

For the brain-dead, drawing any line's just a matter of where.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,773
3
0
Sure, if you have no problem being arrested by Americans while you're still in Canada.
Nothing wrong with that, eh?
As already pointed out U.S. Customs and Border Protection will NOT have arrest powers in Canada, detention powers (you aren't leaving until this is straightened out) yes, arrest powers no, any arrests will have to be made by Canada.
 
Toronto Escorts