# Journalist turned back at US border



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Canadian journalist was detained, searched, and denied entry to the US. The US agents also searched (and possibly recorded) information from phone and notebooks.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...-and-confiscated-his-phones-without-a-warrant

As someone who frequently crosses the Canada-US border, I figured out some time ago that border agents can demand to search your phone. Of course, you don't have to comply, but then you will be turned back.

This is a reminder to people travelling across the border to be careful about what information is on your phone. We don't know what these agents do with the information. For example if you have naked pictures from a girlfriend, the agents might be downloading and then keeping the pictures for their own pleasure. If you have sensitive financial information, the agents might be taking that as well. There is no way to audit or demand disclosure of the information collected, and you also have no idea which parts of the data might be in private possession by the agent.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Canadian border services agents have similar powers to search phones and laptops. SCOC has affirmed it. 

Those who handle confidential information such as lawyers and medical professionals have a duty to ensure that there is nothing on their person that would be considered privileged communication.


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

james4beach said:


> For example if you have naked pictures from a girlfriend, the agents might be downloading and then keeping the pictures for their own pleasure. If you have sensitive financial information, the agents might be taking that as well. There is no way to audit or demand disclosure of the information collected, and you also have no idea which parts of the data might be in private possession by the agent.


That sounds a wee bit over the top. If you have some evidence of this perhaps you could share it.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

^^

lol the rafter wants to see some dirty pix


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Could be very disturbing since most people file everything away in the cloud. Would mean that one's entire 'life' is available for scrutiny. It is not practical to 'delete' cloud apps every time one crosses an International border.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Remind me, why would anyone have naked pictures of girlfriends on his phone?


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

mordko said:


> Remind me, why would anyone have naked pictures of girlfriends on his phone?


And what gf in her right mind would allow herself to be photographed naked?


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

^ yeah, if she does that, the risk of US border agents deciding to jerk off on her photos is the least of her possible problems.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Huh? It 2016, not 1916. There are lots of naked GF pictures out there. Go to a Cuban all inclusive or the Dominican Republic and you'll see lots of people wearing almost nothing on the beach. When I lived in Quebec in the 70s it was not uncommon to see full nudity at unofficial swimming spots (quarries). Nudity is hardly uncommon and people who are comfortable being nude or semi-nude in public are Usually OK with having their picture taken nude.

If there is something on your phone or laptop that you wouldn't show a stranger then remove it before crossing a border.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Jennifer Lawrence says hi.

Not to mention that part of the Snowdon leaks was the fact that government agents would archive and trade naked pictures.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

olivaw said:


> Huh? It 2016, not 1916. There are lots of naked GF pictures out there. Go to a Cuban all inclusive or the Dominican Republic and you'll see lots of people wearing almost nothing on the beach. When I lived in Quebec in the 70s it was not uncommon to see full nudity at unofficial swimming spots (quarries).
> 
> If there is something on your phone or laptop that you wouldn't show a stranger then remove it before crossing a border.


It's one thing to go naked at a beach, for example, where that is the norm. It's another to allow another person to take and retain naked photos of one. I have gone naked on occasion in a few places in a few countries where everyone did the same. People were not snapping photos. I would not have been thrilled to find photos of those occasions posted in the lunchroom on returning to work.

If you allow yourself to be photographed naked, you have to expect those photos will eventually be seen by an audience unknown to you and over which you have no control. There's more than one thread here on CMF discussing how difficult it can be to well and truly delete files from a computer or phone. I am aware of how easy it is for so-called "deleted" material to be brought back to life. I have first-hand knowledge of some stellar examples. It's not just a matter of removing material before crossing a border. If you allow such material to be created, you simply must accept it may later turn up almost anywhere. 

Perhaps people in 2016 are more exhibitionist in disposition than in an earlier era. I feel confident that those with whom I associate, even those much younger than I, like to maintain some measure of control over what material of a personal nature gets published, where and when.

I would also think that a lot of what gets mentioned as photos of a gf, bf or a couple, taken unclothed, are not simply pics of the subjects lying on a blanket at the beach. It is probable that many are a good deal more intimate than that. Olivaw, you might be just fine with such photos of you making the rounds at the office or appearing on "social media", but I choose more modesty and I find that generally more becoming.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Having naked gf pictures on your phone is dumb as is letting someone take them. It's asking for trouble as opposed to "being modern". That is assuming you don't want to have them displayed all over the web.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

wraphter said:


> That sounds a wee bit over the top. If you have some evidence of this perhaps you could share it.


Sure, here's the evidence that border agents sometimes abuse their access

(1) leaked body scan images. Supposed to be kept with the utmost privacy, but sometimes find their way into the public
http://gizmodo.com/5690749/these-are-the-first-100-leaked-body-scans

(2) confessions of an ex TSA agent. Male TSA agents talking in code about attractive women to see naked, people joking and making remarks about the nude body parts and genitalia, having a great time looking at the material
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...rs-didnt-work-did-let-him-see-you-naked.shtml
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/tsa-screener-confession-102912_full.html

(3) Snowden has said that employees with access to this material will pass around nude photos
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014...ass-around-nude-photos-mass-surveillance.html


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I brought up nudity as an example but my concern of privacy at the border extend to everything on your phone. Nude photos _are_ common.

Confidential business information, financial information, etc. My point was that agents can see this information and may not hold it in the deepest confidence.

I'm in the dating scene, and women have been sending me compromising photos of themselves. For their safety I make sure to clear all of this data from my phone before crossing the border.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

AltaRed said:


> Could be very disturbing since most people file everything away in the cloud. Would mean that one's entire 'life' is available for scrutiny. It is not practical to 'delete' cloud apps every time one crosses an International border.



And that is reason enough not to make use of the Cloud, I don't and I clear my phone on a regular basis all that's left is my phone list. 
I just keep a backup of my computer at home.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

You never know what is going to happen when you cross the border into the US.

Border agents don't even need a reason to deny entry, and if a person tries again they are banned permanently from the US.

That is the main reason I would never buy property in the US.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags said:


> Border agents don't even need a reason to deny entry, and if a person tries again they are banned permanently from the US.


Is this true? Do you have any links about this? As a frequent business traveler I should understand this rule.



> That is the main reason I would never buy property in the US.


I agree entirely


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

james4beach said:


> Is this true? Do you have any links about this? As a frequent business traveler I should understand this rule.


They decide whether you are violating any rules. For example, a woman was going to see her sales manager for a meeting. The agent deemed that work and sent her home to get a visa. She tried another border (truck) crossing and was banned for 10 years. Lost her job. She had been paid in Canada.

One of my employees was headed to Chicago to help a customer for one of our software products. No direct payment was involved. He was detained at Pearson while we got the work permit, made the next flight.

The key is to say you are going to meet with peers from around the world. No one-on-one meetings.

(BTW if you own property in the US and rent it out, you cannot work on it without a work permit. No painting or lawn cutting.)


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

I must have travelled at least 100 times to the US for business and pleasure and not once did I have any issues except for an odd dumb question being asked. 

The only time we had a problem was when a US visitor came for a 3 day meeting and Canadian border guard made him pay for a 3 year work permit.


----------



## RCB (Jan 11, 2014)

Carrying a smart phone to the US border can now be equivalent to:

lugging along all of your mail (including financial statements, letters personal and professional, bills)
authorization enabling access to your financial accounts
your rolodex or address book
your relationship ties
your photo albums and super-secret, private "memoery boxes", possibly with their locations
your music albums and book/magazine collections
your calendar on your fridge, your daytimer, with your med, legal, etc. appointments
your grocery and to-do lists
your internet browsing history
your casual digital conversations

I'm sure I've missed some. My phone goes nowhere near the US border. No one has a right to these items of MINE. In fact, I have refused to enter the US for several years, and will no longer do so going forward.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

An average of more than 330 Canadians a day are denied entry into the US.

https://www.thestar.com/news/immigr...urns-to-nightmare-for-mississauga-family.html


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

RCB said:


> Carrying a smart phone to the US border can now be equivalent to:
> 
> lugging along all of your mail (including financial statements, letters personal and professional, bills)
> authorization enabling access to your financial accounts
> ...


Is this a way for me to obtain free service in categorizing and filing my private photos, diary entries, fridge calendar, music, correspondence and grocery to do list?


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

sags said:


> An average of more than 330 Canadians a day are denied entry into the US.
> 
> https://www.thestar.com/news/immigr...urns-to-nightmare-for-mississauga-family.html


The number isn't referenced and as such is highly dubious. Does it include people who forgot to take IDs? 

For comparison, in a single year Canada denies entry to 54,000 people at ports of entry. http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201311_05_e_38799.html

This can be for a variety of reason, e.g. because of criminal record, or because one of your family members is sick. 

The basic rule that helps with crossing any border: don't break the law.


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

Using sophistry, the liberals have constantly sought to minimize the dangers of Islamic terrorism,arguing for example that the amount of ordinary crime is so much higher than terrorism motivated by Islam. Obama has also sought to minimize it by saying it is not an existential threat.

Now it seems that the legacy of permissive,naive liberalism might very well be a turn towards an authoritarian surveillance state, with a diminution of individual freedom for everyone. In Britain a a new law has been passed giving the state greatly enhanced surveillance 
powers. 



> UK adopts unprecedented electronic surveillance bill. Could the U.S. be next?
> 
> The United States could look to the United Kingdom as a model for expanding electronic surveillance after the European nation enacted a law Tuesday giving it unprecedented authority to gather private citizens’ data.
> 
> ...


And of course the liberal enablers and apologists for Islam,those righteous defenders of the underdog, still chant their mantra of equality and tolerance oblivious to the manifest dangers building.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

sags said:


> An average of more than 330 Canadians a day are denied entry into the US.
> 
> https://www.thestar.com/news/immigr...urns-to-nightmare-for-mississauga-family.html


I am not sure that number is just Canadians. In terms of numbers, I found 3 references in the article:


First, it says:

"Doctor’s family was held by U.S. customs, refused entry and sent home — without their iPads and laptops — becoming part of the more than 330 people a day denied entrance to the U.S."

Second, it says:

"The Al-Rawis became part of the 330 or more travellers a day who are refused entry to the United States under the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act, which gives border officials the right to refuse admission of non-Americans — including Canadian citizens."

Finally, it says:

"On a typical day, the agency said, it processes 992,000 admission applications to the U.S., refuses 366 persons as inadmissible and arrests 22 wanted criminals at the ports of entry."

While I read the article rather quickly, I could not be at all sure that the 330 reference was in respect of Canadians only. But then, the article appeared to lack a certain internal consistency. It mentions 330 twice and 366 once.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

mordko said:


> The number isn't referenced and as such is highly dubious. Does it include people who forgot to take IDs?
> 
> For comparison, in a single year Canada denies entry to 54,000 people at ports of entry. http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201311_05_e_38799.html
> 
> ...


The CPIC database contains a lot more information that criminal convictions. It can include anything that local police download to the file.

CPIC is also not the only database available to US border agents.

_When individuals come into contact with the police, whether or not the contact is related to a criminal matter, information about that contact is included in their police file.

Consequently, if individuals request a police records check for the purpose of working or volunteering with a vulnerable population, information about contacts that did not result in conviction is often disclosed. 

Information in federal police databases is also widely accessible by law enforcement agencies – including United States border officials.

Many individuals, family members, employers and other stakeholders are unaware of this practice and its harmful effects. 

Indeed, most discover they have a *non-conviction record* when they are rejected for an employment position or are turned away at the
U.S. border.
_
http://www.mentalhealthpolicerecords.ca/sites/default/files/PRCC STATEMENT- Dec 11, 2013.pdf


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

@Mukhang pera - well spotted. It would appear that the US rejects a much smaller percentage of visitors than Canada (given that far fewer people enter Canada and that the number of rejections at US ports of entry is only twice that of Canada). That is of course assuming unreferenced information in The Star has any basis.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

I stopped going to the USA many years ago, the power that their border people have is really amazing.
All it takes is one customs guy to ban anyone and it would cost thousands to try and change that.

This idea that if you follow the law everything will be fine is a crock, you and I are the enemy at the border as far as they are concerned.
At a BC border crossing a US customs guy had banned hundreds of Canadians, it was found out only because of an unrelated issue that he didn't like Canadians and had the power. This was in the past 5 years.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Let me get this straight... People are so afraid of a 0.0001% risk of not being allowed into the US that they don't even try and thus ensure that the probability of not reaching the US is 1? 

That is so cool! I have always admired human logic.


----------



## SMK (Dec 10, 2015)

james4beach said:


> I'm in the dating scene, and women have been sending me compromising photos of themselves. For their safety I make sure to clear all of this data from my phone before crossing the border.


TMI about the liberal women you date. So that you don't have to worry so much, and of course for their safety, why not just ask them to stop sending you such pictures? :wink:


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

james4beach said:


> I'm in the dating scene, and women have been sending me compromising photos of themselves. For their safety I make sure to clear all of this data from my phone before crossing the border.


Upthread you said that border agents are downloading explicit pictures for amusement . Do you have some evidence of this?
I asked you before. I am still waiting.


People who post explicit pictures of themselves have also the possibility that their ex-boyfriend or ex- girlfriend will seek revenge and 
post these photos publicly. That has lead to some very unhappy situations for young women.
And also for Anthony Weiner.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

wraphter said:


> Upthread you said that border agents are downloading explicit pictures for amusement . Do you have some evidence of this?
> I asked you before. I am still waiting.



jas4 already answered you. Post No 13 above.

what's going on, are you insatiable for titillation?

http://canadianmoneyforum.com/showt...at-US-border?p=1371081&viewfull=1#post1371081


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Canadian border services and US border guards have sweeping powers of detention, interrogation and search. Those who assert their "rights" are playing with fire. 

Nobody knows what Trump and the GOP will do. Given the anti-immigrant, fear-the-terrorist, war on drugs agenda, they're likely to make it harder to cross the border. Good luck trying to argue that the new statutes will only apply to brown people. Canadians enjoy no inherent right to enter US territory and no special protections.


----------



## RCB (Jan 11, 2014)

mordko said:


> Let me get this straight... People are so afraid of a 0.0001% risk of not being allowed into the US that they don't even try and thus ensure that the probability of not reaching the US is 1?
> 
> That is so cool! I have always admired human logic.


In my case, I have multiple reasons for my self-imposed avoidance of the US, and none of them have anything to do a risk of not being allowed in. My difficulties in crossing into the US began in childhood in the 70s, and only worsened due to first 9/11, followed by FATCA (Canadian baby born in US to Canadian parents), and their mistaken belief that they understand citizenship law. I actually stopped crossing the border several times in the past, due to treatment from border guards, with no criminal or questionable history. Crossing for me has ALWAYS been a nightmare.

I'm more than happy to take my tourists dollars elsewhere. Mexico and Scotland have been quite accomodating in this regard, and happy to see me.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

I've been hassled so many times crossing it's not worth the aggravation, we have zero rights at the boarder try asking what the problem is, is there some reason I'm being treated this way, these guy's won't explain anything because they don't have to.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Yeah. The only two times I remember being "hassled":

1. Border guards messed with my son's passport and put a special fancy stamp in it. It was kinda cool actually.
2. I was flying on business to US, the guard noticed several South Korean stamps in the passport and started asking me about N Korea. I think he was genuinely confused between the two and had a lot of spare time on his hands. It was friendly/curiosity type questioning.

Other than this... I've been to US 100s of times and they just wave me through every single time. 

What the heck am I doing wrong? I want something exciting to happen on the border and it's bloody boring every single time.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I used to get questioned each time I crossed the border on 'business' albeit always air travel. Had to explain sometimes that I had to attend meetings at head office. Once in awhile, I'd have to show something in my briefcase that showed my actual itinerary. Also when actually living in the USA on a work visa, I'd get questioned sometimes coming back from European meetings. Guess it was 'odd' for a Canadian to be travelling on business from Europe to USA. Once I was sent to secondary processing for more scrutiny. None of it was bad...just a freaking nuisance after long days of travel.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Few people are aware that border agents also scan them for specific substances and radioisotopes. If you have undergone a medical or diagnostic procedure in the past month you are supposed to inform them. Otherwise they will probably pull you aside for additional screening. 

It is not awful but secondary screening can be intrusive ... even humiliating.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

^ yes, and it happens on every single border in every developed country. We have Islamists to thank for this, among other things.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

olivaw said:


> It is not awful but secondary screening can be intrusive ... even humiliating.


Secondary screening typically is only examining the contents of one's luggage, and only if they are suspicious about intentions such as 'working without a visa' are they likely to go through one's electronic devices. IOW, the degree of secondary screen varies greatly depending on suspicion level.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

mordko said:


> What the heck am I doing wrong? I want something exciting to happen on the border and it's bloody boring every single time.


Get a name that sounds Muslim, or a darker complexion


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

james4beach said:


> Get a name that sounds Muslim, or a darker complexion


What, like Osama or Al Badhdadi? Perhaps not, I shall give that one a miss. May I suggest that converts deserve every minute of special attention they get.

As for complexion, it's just BS. As it happens, people most often targeted by racist assaults in the US are actually Jews.


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

Salman Rushdie has remarked upon the left's attraction to the Muslim cause, even though they have nothing in common in terms of values.
He calls them fellow travelers ,a term first used for socialists who supported Stalin's repressive regime. 

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=1562



> This is a classic mistake and the left has made this mistake before because the worst extension of this mistake is when it looks at movements, radical militant movements which are, in fact, intrinsically fascistic and intrinsically oppressive, but use a rhetoric of claiming to speak for the world’s oppressed peoples. *This is the mistake the left fell into with Soviet Communism, with Stalinism. Here was a fascist movement claiming to be a revolutionary libertarian movement: we’ll have more of that, please.*
> 
> And it seems to me that the fellow traveling of a great section of the left with Islamic radicalism is of exactly the same nature. The desire to oppose the many abuses that America and American power has committed in the world leads people to believe that these others, the people who claim rhetorically to be against that, are actually in some way allies. But actually the truth is that Islamic radicalism, whether it’s Al Qaeda, whether it’s Wahhabism, by whatever name you call it, is not interested in creating a world of greater social justice. It’s not interested in liberating women. It’s not interested in tolerance for minorities and sexual dissidents. It’s not interested in democracy. It’s not interested in having more of the community having a larger share of the pie. It’s not interested in economic redistribution. It’s not interested in any of the things that you would call social justice.
> 
> It’s interested in what the Taliban is interested in. It’s interested in creating a new religious, fascist rule over the planet, you know, the Caliphate, the Talibanization of the earth.* For the left to refuse to understand the nature of the people that they’re refusing to criticize is a historical mistake as great as those who were the fellow travelers of Stalinist Communism in an earlier age.* And I’m not alone in this.There’s at least another 12 people saying this. But there needs to be more than that.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It isn't just people who are being held up at the border. Shipping companies are also being delayed for extra inspections.

Ralph Goodale has been in discussions with the US Homeland Security on problems with the "thickened" border security.

An agreement was reached to expand pre-clearance before arriving at the border, but Trump may nix that agreement.

Other problems are that US border agents have been asking Canadians if they have "ever" smoked marijuana.

A lot of people are faced with a choice of revealing they had sometime in the past, refusing to answer or lying about it.

The first two responses will mean refused entry, so people lie about it.

(Interestingly both PM Trudeau and Stephen Harper would be ineligible to enter into the US since they admitted they tried pot)

Other people have been refused entry due to information in their health records. 

_Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale says Canadians slapped with a lifetime ban on entering the United States for telling a border guard they have recreationally smoked pot is a "ridiculous situation" that needs to be addressed._

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ludicrous-pot-border-goodale-1.3754315


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I will cross the US border and take my chances, but I would never buy any property in the US.

If a person gets refused entry once for any reason or no reason at all, it is a costly and cumbersome process to obtain a US Entry Waiver.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

sags said:


> Other people have been refused entry due to information in their health records.


Interesting. I have health issues that require me to carry medications across the border. My experience has been that border agents are very courteous about them. They studiously avoid acknowledging them or asking any direct health related questions. 

I wonder if those who were refused entry due to information in their health records have a history of addiction or severe mental illness.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Mukhang pera said:


> It's one thing to go naked at a beach, for example, where that is the norm. It's another to allow another person to take and retain naked photos of one. I have gone naked on occasion in a few places in a few countries where everyone did the same. People were not snapping photos. I would not have been thrilled to find photos of those occasions posted in the lunchroom on returning to work.
> 
> If you allow yourself to be photographed naked, you have to expect those photos will eventually be seen by an audience unknown to you and over which you have no control ...


In these days of cell phone cameras, never mind security cameras ... how does one know when one is or is not being photographed?

http://www.nj.com/ocean/index.ssf/2016/09/man_who_took_pictures_of_women_in_target_dressing.html
http://www.snopes.com/2016/07/13/tr...-for-taking-pictures-in-target-changing-room/
http://www.denverpost.com/2016/08/12/castle-rock-outlets-peeping-tom-sentenced/
http://www.dailywire.com/news/8991/report-man-took-photos-woman-target-changing-room-aaron-bandler
http://wtkr.com/2016/09/19/family-discovers-hidden-camera-at-virginia-beach-hotel/
http://www.tbo.com/news/crime/hotel...men-in-shower-lake-wales-police-say-20150323/
http://www.hotel-online.com/News/PR2002_3rd/Sept02_HiddenCamera.html
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.c...n-found-hidden-camera-in-hotel-room-1-3876167
http://www.news8000.com/news/eau-claire-pd-arrest-tn-man-for-hotel-hidden-camera-operation/39223960


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

mordko said:


> I must have travelled at least 100 times to the US for business and pleasure and not once did I have any issues except for an odd dumb question being asked ....


The flip side of the coin is my former co-worker. He told his US employer he'd be happy to participate in the monthly meetings via teleconference but as the hassles he had from the US border types had been escalating - he was no longer interested, even if it meant having to find another job.

Then there's my parents who were already retired ... their longest delay at the US border was when Mom said she was attending a writer's conference. While I can see how some younger folks could disappear into the US to a happier life, with them being retired and in their '70's, it made no sense that they would want to live on the lam. All other crossings were smooth in comparison.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

mordko said:


> james4beach said:
> 
> 
> > Get a name that sounds Muslim, or a darker complexion
> ...


Interesting ... my former co-worker had a name nothing like Osama or similar, he had the complexion that is supposedly not a problem, lots of documentation as well as trips to show he was on a regular business trip - yet he reported enough hassles for each trip to barely make it worthwhile. After it was announced that security was being ramped to keep the US safer from terrorists, had his employer insisted on him going to the US in person, he would have quit his job.

I am pretty sure he does not agree on the complexion angle.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

mordko said:


> .... Other than this... I've been to US 100s of times and they just wave me through every single time.
> What the heck am I doing wrong?
> 
> I want something exciting to happen on the border and it's bloody boring every single time.


Not sure it is an exhaustive list but from personal experience or those who have reported hassles, some of the ways are:

a) do not look the part when applying for the visa (better credentials but not looking the part resulted in a four hours of delay versus less credentials bit looking the part in twenty minutes).

b) go to the US for a reason that supposedly a lot of illegals use.

c) give the reason for entry as something the border official "knows" that the US does not do.

d) have a layover in the US, from Italy connecting to Toronto, despite many crossings on record in the Niagara Falls Ontario area.

e) have your name on a security list, despite being four years old. 

f) be honest about being fingerprinted when asked. Given my past history of crossing, it was hilarious to watch the holster cover being removed then a partial removal of the gun, the border guard sticking his head as well as an arm aggressively into the car for a simple yes.


Cheers


*PS*

Apparently Americans have a tough time for their children too.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/nyregion/14watchlist.html


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

^ That's all good and great and - yes - troublesome if/when you have to deal with it. So long as we acknowledge that it's not just that US but ever single country in the world, including Canada, that has these issues at border crossings. US is better than most. 

One exception to the above is the bridge to Michigan which lacks the capacity. The Obama administration has deliberately sabotaged Canadian attempts to build another bridge. Why? Because Obama is in the pocket of a local magnate who owns the bridge and charges $5 for the crossing. 

In many ways Democrats deserved what they got although I doubt Trump will be an improvement.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

Funny I've never had a bad experience crossing a boarder in any other country, Mexico, UK, EU.

My wife and daughter cross to shop no issue at all, but me crossing alone once a week seems to be an issue just to check my US post box. 
I've since given up on the post box even though it made buying things much cheaper with their low postal rates on things I could not get shipped to Canada.

On one of my last trips I got pulled over on my way back to Canada 100 feet from the boarder I have no idea what they were looking for but they seemed serious told me to go stand on the grass about 50 feet away then they started asking questions as I started to walk closer to hear they started pointing rifles. They spent 15-20 minutes going through my car asking if I had parts to make guns, just plain crazy sh#t . 

This is after crossing many times over the years, and no they didn't see a need to inform me of what was going on.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

^ Funny, I've never had a bad experience crossing the border into the US, but I had an awful experience with UK. And while I never had a bad experience with Canada (even prior to getting a Canadian citizenship), in places like Russia it is generally known that getting into Canada for a short visit is much more of a pain in the *** vs going to US. And I know a whole Americans who had real trouble crossing the border into Canada (mainly being forced to pay for a work visa for coming for a short business meeting).


----------



## cedebe (Feb 1, 2012)

Daniel A. said:


> Funny I've never had a bad experience crossing a boarder in any other country, Mexico, UK, EU.
> 
> My wife and daughter cross to shop no issue at all, but me crossing alone once a week seems to be an issue just to check my US post box.
> I've since given up on the post box even though it made buying things much cheaper with their low postal rates on things I could not get shipped to Canada.
> ...


If you're crossing that often, it makes sense to apply for NEXUS. I don't think I've ever been subjected to any questions at either the Peace Arch or truck crossing since getting one years ago. (YVR's a bit different.) Sorry to read about your negative experience.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

cedebe said:


> If you're crossing that often, it makes sense to apply for NEXUS. I don't think I've ever been subjected to any questions at either the Peace Arch or truck crossing since getting one years ago. (YVR's a bit different.) Sorry to read about your negative experience.


Aldergrove was the crossing I used mostly, the worst was the one coming back 100 feet from the Canadian boarder. I don't know if that crossing was set up for NEXUS I never noticed it.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

mordko said:


> ^ That's all good and great and - yes - troublesome if/when you have to deal with it. So long as we acknowledge that it's not just that US but ever single country in the world, including Canada, that has these issues at border crossings. US is better than most.


Problem is that without any data ... everyone is using their experience. Your experience is that complexion is not an issue whereas my former co-worker's experience is that for the group going down to the US, complexion was the only difference. 

I am not current on what countries he has visited but he was clear that work or tourism - for the countries he has worked in/visited, the US wins, hands down for the most hassles. 



Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

mordko said:


> One exception to the above is the bridge to Michigan which lacks the capacity.


You are saying capacity means more/even/less chance of being hassled at the US border? 




mordko said:


> The Obama administration has deliberately sabotaged Canadian attempts to build another bridge. Why? Because Obama is in the pocket of a local magnate who owns the bridge and charges $5 for the crossing.


In what ways?

Obama didn't come into office until 2009. The bridge was proposed in 2004 where for most of the time, the deciding power was in Michigan. It looks like Michigan as well as the president were Republican for at least four years of the bridge saga. 

There's lawsuits by the current bridge owners against the US, Canadian, Windsor gov'ts - including a NAFTA challenge. There's millions in political contributions, multimillion dollars ads claiming despite Canada's pledge to pay for all but the US customs plaza that Michigan residents would have to pay for a $2 Billion bridge as well as $100 million a year thereafter. There was owner contributions to the Michigan Republican party. There was the owner's attempt to add an amendment to Michigan’s highest law—the state constitution—to require a public referendum on any new international bridge project (majority approval by the local district affected, in addition to a state wide majority. Tea party support to block the new Canadian funded bridge.

So far, the only reference I am finding to the Obama administration is the 2013 *approval* by the State Department as well as the president to build the Canadian funded bridge. http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/obama-approves-construction-of-second-detroit-windsor-bridge-1.1235194

It seems the bridge owners don't care whether it is republicans or democrats, as long as their planned twinning of the bridge (as well as keeping it privately held in their hands) is what happens.


If Obama is blocking it, it seems odd that he wouldn't veto it, like was done with Keystone XL.


Cheers


*PS*
While the tolls are a good cash cow (no toll increases for the fifty years before him, quadrupled car and doubled truck tolls in twenty five years), some think that being one of two US border locations that are exempt from US fuel taxes is a major source of revenue as the price is only a bit lower. This means almost 100% of the normal US gas tax is going to the owner's profits.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Eclectic,

While responsibility for this idiocy isn't Obamas alone, his administration (in conjunction with the congress) refused to pay even for the customs on the US side. Furthermore, he banned US ambassador to Canada from even discussing the issue. When he wants to, he can steamroll through any opposition, as we have seen with the Keystone pipeline, Obamacare and the Iran deal. 

Clearly Obama and his administration bear a lion share of responsibility for this. It is part of the overall policy of this administration with its buy American, anti Keystone, meat labelling measures which are punitive to Canadian producers, anti bridge, anticanada position.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Eclectic12 said:


> Problem is that without any data ... everyone is using their experience. Your experience is that complexion is not an issue whereas my former co-worker's experience is that for the group going down to the US, complexion was the only difference.
> 
> I am not current on what countries he has visited but he was clear that work or tourism - for the countries he has worked in/visited, the US wins, hands down for the most hassles.
> 
> ...


While we don't have any data for border crossings, the causes could be racism, history of law breaking, name, individuals behaviour while crossing, lack of documents, etc...

As luck would have it, there are data on who hate attacks in the US target most often. People targeted most often are Jews, then gays, then (far behind) Muslims, then blacks. That deals with the racism issue, unless we think that border crossing officers are deliberately selected based on anti black racism 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/uri-wilensky/the-most-hated-people-in-_b_9327362.html


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

^I enjoy Huff Post at times but that is an opinion article and the figures don't support the argument. The source is the FBI. See https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2013/topic-pages/incidents-and-offenses/incidentsandoffenses_final



> Of the 6,921 single-bias hate crime offenses reported in the above incidents:
> 
> 49.2 percent stemmed from racial bias. [66.4 percent of those were motivated by anti-Black or African American bias.]
> 20.3 percent were motivated by sexual-orientation bias. [60.6 percent of those were classified as anti-gay (male) bias.]
> ...


Anti-black hate crimes were 66.4% of 49.2% = 32.7%
Anti-gay-male hate crimes were 60.6% of 20.3% = 12.3%
Antisemitic hate crimes were 59.2% of 16.8% = 9.9%
Anti-Muslim hate crimes were 14.2% of 16.8% = 2.38%

All hate crime is wrong. Primary targets are blacks, gay males, Jews - in that order, based on the 2013 FBI statistics.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

^ not really because Jews make targets of both religious AND racist attacks. So, within 49.2% in the above there is an unknown number of antisemitic attacks. As such the split isn't particularly helpful. And of course antisemitic attacks have been on the rise since 2013.

Putting that aside, Jews make up 2% of population in the US and blacks make up 12% of the population.

Taking your numbers, probability of being attacked is twice as high for Jews as it is for blacks.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

^Not according to the published FBI data. The United States does not consider Jews to be a race. The FBI categorizes hate crimes against Jews as religious attacks. 

It should be noted that it is the criminal's intent that identifies a crime as a hate crime, not the demographic of the victim(s).


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

No idea what US bureaucracy does but the dictionary recognizes Jews as an ethnicity. Antisemitic attacks on Soros, Julia Yoffe, Joe Cox or Soviet Jews by th government of USSR have zero to do with religion because none of these Jews are/were religious. 

Regardless, simple math tells us that based on your numbers a Jew is twice as likely to be attacked as a black person.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Simple math shows no such thing. I did the simple math for you upthread:



> Anti-black hate crimes were 66.4% of 49.2% = 32.7%
> Anti-gay-male hate crimes were 60.6% of 20.3% = 12.3%
> Antisemitic hate crimes were 59.2% of 16.8% = 9.9%
> Anti-Muslim hate crimes were 14.2% of 16.8% = 2.38%


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Yes it does. To estimate individuals probability of being attacked you need to take the number of attacks and divide by the number of people in a group.

In other words, if we have 1 individual belonging to group A and 100 individuals in group B and if you have 2 attacks against group A and 3 attacks against group B, it should be obvious who is more targeted. Let me give you a clue: not B.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

mordko said:


> ... While responsibility for this idiocy isn't Obamas alone, his administration (in conjunction with the congress) refused to pay even for the customs on the US side ... Clearly Obama and his administration bear a lion share of responsibility for this. It is part of the overall policy of this administration with its buy American, anti Keystone, meat labelling measures which are punitive to Canadian producers, anti bridge, anticanada position.


Good examples of where Obama isn't being a friend to Canada.

The problem for me is that the claim was that Obama "is in the pocket of a local magnate who owns the bridge". 

Given how up and down the Michigan public as well as the state administration has been, it seems rather easy to withhold permission, which would help the owner as well as stop the Canadian bridge. By granting permission (regardless of who should pay what), the owner's attempt to keep his competition to the tunnel and ferries seems to be up in smoke (as well as a waste of contributions to the Democrat and Republican parties).


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

mordko said:


> ... As luck would have it, there are data on who hate attacks in the US target most often. People targeted most often are Jews, then gays, then (far behind) Muslims, then blacks. That deals with the racism issue, unless we think that border crossing officers are deliberately selected based on anti black racism


It seems you are arguing that what shows up in the general public is going to define how the border crossing officials make judgement calls.

I am not so sure this is true as while crossing to work in the US, none of the border crossing officers showed any concern about me taking a job from a US citizen but myself plus the other four Canadians heard about it twice a week for at least five months. Most of my colleagues working in the US reported the same thing.


Cheers


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

There appears to be a pattern for liberal radicalization.

Phase 1.

Protecting and defending Muslims themselves. A common argument is that the fringe groups in the white majority are just as bad as the Muslims. This is called the moral equivalence argument.

Phase 2.

A more hostile phase, resentment towards authority such as border guards and police. Plenty of comments about how unfair the
authorities are. A certain adolescent-like braggadocio " Look how tough I am. I'm not afraid of the pigs."

Phase 1 and 2 are highly correlated. Most are just shooting their mouth off and won't go further.

Phase 3. Subjects look for a hero like Karl Marx or Che Guevara or Obama's friend Bill Ayers.

Phase 4. Subject meets a charismatic leader who recruits him to the cause. 

phase 5. Subject disappears into the underground .


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Eclectic12 said:


> It seems you are arguing that what shows up in the general public is going to define how the border crossing officials make judgement calls.
> 
> I am not so sure this is true as while crossing to work in the US, none of the border crossing officers showed any concern about me taking a job from a US citizen but myself plus the other four Canadians heard about it twice a week for at least five months. Most of my colleagues working in the US reported the same thing.
> 
> ...


Yes, that is what I am arguing but specifically in relation to racism. Could be wrong but I am not sure why prevalence of racism would be different among border guards than among population in general. 

Incidentally, border guards routinely question me about the nature of the meetings in the US - clearly in relation to the risk of me "taking the jobs away".


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

mordko said:


> Yes, that is what I am arguing but specifically in relation to racism. Could be wrong but I am not sure why prevalence of racism would be different among border guards than among population in general.


One factor that might come into play is that the FBI stats seem to be from where people had to put effort into it. Making a judgement call where it could go either way takes less effort and is far less likely to be noticed/traced compared to what the FBI might be tracking.




mordko said:


> Incidentally, border guards routinely question me about the nature of the meetings in the US - clearly in relation to the risk of me "taking the jobs away".


Interesting ... as working in the US has had almost no questions versus the questions asked when saying I was consuming a service in the US (ex. training or conference).


Cheers


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

james4beach said:


> Canadian journalist was detained, searched, and denied entry to the US. The US agents also searched (and possibly recorded) information from phone and notebooks.
> 
> As someone who frequently crosses the Canada-US border, I figured out some time ago that border agents can demand to search your phone. Of course, you don't have to comply, but then you will be turned back.
> 
> This is a reminder to people travelling across the border to be careful about what information is on your phone.


This story was on the TV news. The reason that he was turned back was supposedly b/c he refused to unlock his phone. This is what I don't understand. If you're a journalist that wants to protect his sources, or just someone who needs naked pictures of his girlfriend to get him through those lonely nights alone in a hotel...

There are several cloud storage sites that you can upload your data to (zip & encrypted), then wipe your phone clean except for email acknowledgments for hotel, transport bookings, and photos of your dog dressed in a Halloween costume. Keep some contacts like immediate family members and emergency contact, so it doesn't look so much like a 'sanitized' drop phone. Let the customs agent look all they want. When you get to your destination, log on to the cloud storage site, and reload your personal data. You don't even want to store a link to the cloud storage service on your phone, just remember it.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

CBC is running an article on what to do when border agents want to search your phone or other devices:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/border-phone-laptop-search-cbsa-canada-cbp-us-1.4002609

This is the best piece of advice: "You protect your privacy before you get to the border, not at the border," Vonn says. "Think long and hard before [crossing] if there are other people's information on your device that you are legally or ethically obliged to protect."

... because of that issue (other people's information on my device) I delete as much as I can before entering the US. It's an ethical obligation to protect others, which is an ethical obligation that neither US nor Canadian border guards respect.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It sounds like a good software program is necessary, that hides all your real information and presents a bunch of sanitized information for their personal viewing.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

There's a danger that software like that may be considered counter-intelligence and could land you in even more trouble.

My approach is to keep it simple and just delete a whole bunch of things from my phone: apps, messages, photos. The benefit is that my phone doesn't have anything particularly useful about me at any time, even if it's lost or stolen.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

james4beach said:


> My approach is to keep it simple and just delete a whole bunch of things from my phone: apps, messages, photos. The benefit is that my phone doesn't have anything particularly useful about me at any time, even if it's lost or stolen.



don't you think that userkare has a good suggestion upthread though

store in cloud, keep nothing on phone so if it's lost or stolen it won't matter, like you say

do not store cloud link on phone

.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Brown people may be targeted by US border agent: * Canadian woman en route to spa denied entry to U.S., told she needs immigrant visa*


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

What is more disturbing is the statements of the border guard's superiors who appear to condone the behavior of individual border guards liberated by Trump to apply their own discriminatory beliefs to the situation.

In the US it doesn't take much education or experience to become a prison guard, police officer, armed security guard or border guard.

The standards for employment in such positions are considerably higher in Canada.


----------

