aphid

Please sir, might I steal this line? John

I hope your appearance on CNN after diving in after the doofus in the flood canal makes it!

I have no reason to doubt the veracity of this statement found in an OpEd piece from the Globe and Mail. And if it's accurate, we (I include Canuckians as contributors to this issue, although in a more modest way) are truly reaping what we have sowed. (Disclaimer: I take no stand on the right/left of the politics of this. I just found the information... distressing) From the piece: "American companies are creating millions of jobs. The trouble is, they’re not in America, which is an increasingly uncompetitive place to do business. The biggest manufacturer of electronic goods in the world is the Taiwanese-based giant Foxconn. It employs nearly a million people – that’s more than the worldwide work forces of Apple, Dell, Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, Intel and Sony combined." Full item at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/debt-ceiling-chicken-and-the-end-of-empire/article2114682/

Hey Rob, You're missing a killer ASPA Provincials at Eden North. Most competitors and best attendance in years. FS, 10way Speed, Canopy Piloting, 2way CRW, accuracy. Live (surfer-punk) music last night. AND, the best weather I've seen in about 5 years. John

From today's Vancouver Sun newspaper: "Today, we have people who have created Facebook pages where you can volunteer to go down to those same wrecked streets and start to clean up. We have pages created where you can upload photos and videos of the hoodlums who turned over cars, broke windows, assaulted people and looted stores. In this world of cell phones equipped with cameras and videos, the anonymity of stupidity and criminality is punctured. Maybe we couldn't stop the riot without the police and their mounted squads, smoke grenades, flash-bangs, dogs and tear gas. But we have other ways now of reaching out and touching those who wrecked our city and our reputation. And we should not stop until they are all brought to account." complete editorial here: http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/civiclee/archive/2011/06/16/vancouverites-take-back-our-city-from-these-thugs-and-louts.aspx

No nation has a monopoly on asswipes. We have our share too. Should be entertaining to watch the processing of video identification of the morons and the steady parade to court.

Yup. But don't expect any of his detractors to ever agree. It's a Thomas "love-in" this year.

He's right where he belonged... Kindly don't include us in this equation. (Although, I understand the tongue-in-cheek) Dudley Do-Right was a cartoon Canuck Mountie. Canadian chartered banks are (reasonably) regulated. So far no banking or currency melt-down. You know... we're actually not a bad kind of neighbor to have. And we're gonna win the Cup! John

Agreed.

You write with apparent experience or knowledge in this field. Certainly more so than me. Perhaps you practice law or might even work with/for CBP. Regardless, I'll do my best. I concur with your statement based on my research over the last 18 months or so. I can only add that while I consider myself reasonably intelligent, reasonably well-traveled, and reasonably well-read, if an officer had suggested that to me, I truly would not then have had a clue what he/she was going on about. Is this a CBP policy? Or is it Law? Is there evidence of "bad faith" being a justifiable ground for ER in the Act? I suppose that depends on whether we can agree what constitutes pushing back. To me, it was when, after interrogation for 4.5 hours going around and around on the same topic, not being allowed to go to the bathroom (and I was desperate), I slammed my hand on my knee and growled, "What part of this don't you understand?!" If that's against the intent of the Act of Congress, then yes, I am guilty. Is this CBP policy? Is there evidence of treating an officer with contempt being a justifiable ground for ER in the Act? Interesting. I stand corrected. Our laws differ in Canada apparently. I suppose the reporter I spoke to (who doesn't work for the Globe, by the way, but is familiar with the author and topic due to a concurrent series of exposes) could have chosen to lie to me for reasons unknown. There are hundreds of items available on the internet dealing with this topic, I'm sure you could find many and are likely aware of them. But I'll direct you to just one. In consideration of full disclosure, it is posted on a web-blog for an Immigration Attorney. It notes in part this list of reasons: * Fraud or misrepresentation [INA Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i)]; * Falsely claiming U.S. citizenship [INA Section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)]; * An intending immigrant who is not in possession of a valid unexpired immigrant visa or other suitable entry document [INA Section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I)]; * A nonimmigrant who is not in possession of a passport valid for a minimum of six (6) months from the date of the expiration of the initial period of stay [INA Section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(II)(i)]; or * A nonimmigrant who is not in possession of a valid nonimmigrant visa or border crossing card at the time of application for admission [INA Section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(II)(ii)]. Note: That's them. No mention of working. Or being the wrong colour. Or supporting the wrong hockey team.

From the article: "...to summarily ban me from their country." "...we were fingerprinted, photographed and escorted back to the Canadian border under armed guard." "...having no permanent address for more than six consecutive months is grounds for banishment from the United States." A denial of entry (relatively common) does not ban re-entry. You can try again "tomorrow". Note the author used the word ban. A denial of entry does not precipitate fingerprinting, mugshots and armed escort. They do watch you go back from their windows though. :) And again the author uses the word banishment. No, she did not use the correct legal term, Order of Expedited Removal. Expedited Removal orders carry two penalties; 5 year or lifetime. And just to be sure, I checked with the reporter who lined up the guest writer. Does that clear it up? The point I'm driving at is two-fold; 1) Expedited Removal was not authorized by Congress to be used for suspicion or even proof of working illegally, and, 2) Orders of Expedited Removal, even when unlawfully or incorrectly applied by a Border employee, are exempt from review by Federal Courts. I can assure you, most Canucks do not "have a difficult time understanding that American immigration laws do apply to Canadians and always did".

If this 5 year ban wasn't so patently absurd, it might be kind of funny. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/facts-and-arguments/the-essay/professional-pet-sitting-is-a-risky-business/article2018672/ "How did I get tangled up in a style of life so sordid it put the U.S. government on high alert? ...the hyper-vigilant organization had no recourse but to summarily ban me from their country. You see, I'm a pet-sitter. I know it’s hard to believe; Homeland Security certainly didn't." I hope the good people of America sleep better at night knowing they're being protected by these officials. (Co-incidentally, this one was also administered by the Seattle Field Office).

Hi Paul, hope to see you at the CRW record. (Editorial from the Vancouver Sun - I wish more American's would read this, so they could get an idea of what their friendly neighbor is beginning to think about them, after supporting their "war on terror" with our youth's blood, their broken economy with our dollars, and as their number one foreign oil/gas/electric/water supplier) http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Cross+border+shoppers+terrorists/4801879/story.html ************************************* Cross-border shoppers are not terrorists The border between Canada and the United States is like no other. Although its characterization as the "world's longest undefended border" has always been more hyperbole than fact, most Canadians think nothing about crossing it to shop, visit friends, see the sights and even buy second homes. Last July, a peak travel month, Canadians -80 per cent of whom live within 100 kilometres of the border -made 3.8 million trips to the U.S., of which two million were same-day trips by car. Most crossings take place without incident but a growing number of Canadians are finding the reception at the border less welcoming than in the past. The mood at U.S. crossing points changed abruptly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the perception of Canada shifted from friendly neighbour to terrorist haven. The Fraser Institute's recent report What Congress Thinks of Canada refers to "persistent and repeated" allegations by U.S. politicians that Canada is soft on terrorism, including the myth that the perpetrators of 9/11 entered the U.S. from Canada. In fact, the terrorists lived, worked and trained in the U.S. and none had crossed the Canadian border. Nevertheless, American lawmakers fear what they see as porous borders with Canada and Mexico and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection arm of the Department of Homeland Security no longer appears to differentiate between tourism from a highly-developed, post-industrial nation and illegal immigration from a crime-ridden developing country. In December, the U.S. Government Accountability Office claimed less than one per cent of the border is secure, and that Islamic terrorists are far more likely to enter the U.S. from Canada than from Mexico. Meanwhile, Democratic senators from states near the border have asked the U.S. Department of Defence to set up military radar to catch drug traffickers using low-flying aircraft to smuggle drugs from Canada into the U.S. However, a joint border threat and risk assessment by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Canada Border Services Agency and the RCMP published last July reported that the "vast majority of cocaine that crosses the U.S.-Canada border is northbound into Canada." The risk assessment also noted that most of the foreign-produced marijuana in the U.S. comes from Mexico (most of Canada's is from Jamaica) and that Canadian marijuana represents only a small portion of the U.S. market. Despite the evidence that the Canada-U.S. border is not a significant security threat, U.S. border guards are greeting Canadians with suspicion, if not outright hostility. Take the case of Leah Shaffer, a North Vancouver man who owned a cottage in Point Roberts, Wash., for 23 years. Although he provided documents to prove he lived and worked in Canada, a border guard decided Shaffer was living illegally in the U.S. and banned his entry for five years. Rather than spend thousands on legal costs to fight the order, he sold the cottage. In another case, Wayne Liptrot, 68, was banned from entering the U.S. while trying to board a plane to Hawaii (where he owned two condos) at Vancouver International Airport in 2008 after a U.S. customs officer accused him of living in the U.S. from 1993 to 2006. The ban remained in force even when he showed documents that proved the allegations were false to the officer's supervisor. Of course, the U.S. has every right to protect its borders and assert its sovereignty. But when overzealous border guards grill, humiliate and intimidate Canadians, and exercise absolute power to deny entry to law-abiding citizens with proper travel documents, governments need to act. As it stands, a Canadian denied entry must file an appeal in U.S. federal district court, a lengthy and costly process. In one case that's come to our attention, a Canadian banned for five years spent $48,000 to challenge the order in court. After a two-year fight, he lost. This state of affairs is unacceptable. Canadians are not trying to sneak into the U.S. in search of a better life as an illegal alien. Life is pretty good here. Nor is Canada flooding the U.S. with drugs, unlike the U.S. flooding Canada with handguns. It is up to both the U.S. and Canadian governments to establish an expedited process that will resolve border disputes quickly at no cost to the victim. The technology to verify identity and the validity of travel documents is well-established -as the enhanced driver's licence and Nexus card have shown. A fast, efficient pre-clearance system for business travellers and a streamlined dispute resolution process will avoid confrontations at the border. Maybe then Canadians travelling to the U.S. will feel again like welcome guests instead of criminals.

My lawyer and I participated in a nationally syndicated radio program this morning. If you'd like to understand the jurisdictional limitations place upon the federal court by Congress, feel free to listen to it. (The program starts about 5 minutes in, following the news). The file is attached and should work with Windows Media Pplayer.

From my personal perspective, I have been surprised sometimes at cogent debate from people who differ greatly from me politically or socially. Yes, some of my opinions have certainly been modified based on those rare gems of thought.

Not quite sure where this belongs, but I'm looking to reach out to a skydiving journalist (print or broadcast) in the Seattle area at the Times, P.I., or television. Any out there? Thanks John

The DZ (not the the town of Eloy) is about 6km from the Toltec Motel6.

What makes you think the CPB's administrative bans are protected from judicial oversight? They are not. In other words, they are subject to judicial review. But for the most part, judicial oversight - whether in the US or, for example, Canada, is not an automatically-triggered process. It requires an aggrieved party to file a lawsuit against the governmental agency asking the court to compel the agency to stop doing the wrong thing and start doing the right thing. In this instance, anyone who has standing as an aggrieved party - such as the harried and hassled folks spotlighted in the 2 articles - can file a lawsuit against the applicable US govt agency/ies seeking specific relief. In fact, your second article reflects this fact in an indirect way; for example: (a) the person who unfortunately gave up out of frustration rather than spend a lot of money in legal fees, and (b) the immigration attorney who has more work than he can handle. Andy, I respectfully disagree. I am the un-named client in the article that has attempted legal action to the sum of $48K thus far. And the Court agreed Friday past that NO, they do NOT have jurisdiction to review (alleged) unlawful or abusive processing of Expedited Removal orders issued by CBP. If you would like to discuss this further, I will consider private correspondence. John

I thought as a practicing lawyer, you and others might be taken aback at the (apparent) unconstitutional protection shielding them from judicial oversight.

A series of two articles appeared recently in the Vancouver Sun newspaper detailing issues more Canadians are encountering with US Customs and Border Protection and the lack of judicial oversight to CBP's alleged unlawful conduct. Article 1: http://www.vancouversun.com/Five+year+prompts+sell+home/4745766/story.html "North Vancouver man to sell Point Roberts cottage after being banned from entering U.S. Couple fed up with difficulties with border guard say they won't be returning to Point Roberts." Article 2: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Banished+border/4784413/story.html "Travelling from Canada to the U.S. used to be easy. That's not always the case any more, with an increasing number of Canadians ensnared in customs hassles after 9/11." Most disconcerting might be the comments of the Court in rendering a decision from a federal case challenging CBP's conduct: "The troubling reality of the expedited removal procedure is that a CBP officer can create the ... charge by deciding to convert the person's status from a non-immigrant with valid papers to an intending immigrant without the proper papers, and then that same officer, free from the risk of judicial oversight, can confirm his or her suspicions of the person's intentions and find the person guilty of that charge. The entire process, from the initial decision to convert the person's status to removal, can happen without any check on whether the person understood the proceedings, had an interpreter, or enjoyed any other safeguards. To say that this procedure is fraught with risk of arbitrary, mistaken, or discriminatory behaviour -suppose a particular CBP officer decides that enough visitors from Africa have already entered the U.S. -is not, however, to say that courts are free to disregard jurisdictional limitations." (To avoid confusion or any discussion falling prey to semantics - Canada is a visa-exempt nation. Visa's are not required to enter the USA, just a valid passport. And according to the Act of Congress authorizing Expedited Removal's, suspicion - even proof - of working in the US illegally is not grounds for that penalty.)

Remi, I know you've seen many examples of this young lady in my on-line photo-gallery, but what a perfect opportunity to further share one of my favourite volunteer-models. She's a native of Montreal as well. And she sounds sexy too! (kinda SFW) John ETA: Well, I tried to attach a copy but no luck... oh well.

Wendy. I can assure you from personal experience that, no, apparently they don't. If you're interested, just say the word and I'll send you files privately.

No. This one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e3yVj5K178 Boobies. (ETA: somebody beat me to it)

Actually I was thinking along the lines of just a one-on-one encounter with a government employee. Could be at the DMV, the post office, a meter-maid in town, a routine traffic stop, whatever. I have been known to utter "with all due respect, are you a (expletive deleted) moron!?" or other words to similar effect. I've never once felt I risked being arrested. Or receiving a nightstick to the side of the head. Judging from some the of the responses, I'll keep my opinions to myself in the future.

Game 5 in Vancouver tonight. Marc Donnelly and the multitude. Now that's the way a National Anthem should be. I was in Russia in '06 for the World Meet (CRW) and I asked some local musicians to sing their anthem for me. (I happen to think the music is very moving). They couldn't. They knew neither the words and I discovered I carried the tune better than they could. Sad.