San Ysidro Border Crossing Expansion

[mgk920]

Believe me, it is bad.  Russia is one of the few countries in the world where Americans actually have to send their passports away to obtain visas--we don't get visa-free or visa-on-arrival entry like we do with 150 other countries.

yep.  Hungarian citizens also have a similarly byzantine set of regulations to abide by.  there is a good reason why I did not go into Russia when I was in Norway.  I did take a few photos of their side of the river, though. 



yep, the left side is Russian tundra, which is so completely different from Norwegian tundra that it is clearly worth the bureaucracy and the hassles to prevent the spoiling of its innate Russian qualities.

when I go to Europe in November, I will happily drive all over the Schengen zone, including as far as Tallinn, Estonia, but I'll make sure to stay away from the Russian border!

And that includes that little enclave of Russia that sits in the way of the most direct route between Tallinn and central and western Europe (Kaliningrad).

(now, when they fully pave the Trans-Siberian highway as they are planning to do by about 2020... well, now that's gonna be a different story!)

Is there any chance that Russia will ease up on that morass at any time within the foreseeable future (imagining a time, someday in the distant future, when there is a fixed crossing between Alaska and eastern Siberia)?

Mike

[vdeane]

A "land" border would certainly help, but I doubt it will really change until the US and Russia put the Cold War behind them.

[J N Winkler]

Entered Italy via Rome/FCO in Sept 2009.  Stamped on entry. Left Italy, 12 days later via Venice/Marco Polo airport, no stamp. Entered France in "Londres" in May 2010, barely legible stamp.  Left the Netherlands via Schipol Airport 4 days later, looked like he was looking for the entry stamp, skipped the correct French stamp, stamped next to my Sept 2009 Italian entry stamp.  In no case was my passport ever scanned at a Schengen border.

This is interesting and important information (especially about China).  The British have been scanning the MRZ for years, certainly at the airports, and possibly at the Eurostar terminals (my last Eurostar trip was in 2008 and I can't remember if my passport was scanned).  I don't think my passport has been scanned on entry to or exit from Schengen, but I can't be completely sure because the booths are usually enclosed with a sheet of glass between me and the immigration inspector, which prevents me from getting good line of sight to the desk.

[mtantillo]

Entered Italy via Rome/FCO in Sept 2009.  Stamped on entry. Left Italy, 12 days later via Venice/Marco Polo airport, no stamp. Entered France in "Londres" in May 2010, barely legible stamp.  Left the Netherlands via Schipol Airport 4 days later, looked like he was looking for the entry stamp, skipped the correct French stamp, stamped next to my Sept 2009 Italian entry stamp.  In no case was my passport ever scanned at a Schengen border.

This is interesting and important information (especially about China).  The British have been scanning the MRZ for years, certainly at the airports, and possibly at the Eurostar terminals (my last Eurostar trip was in 2008 and I can't remember if my passport was scanned).  I don't think my passport has been scanned on entry to or exit from Schengen, but I can't be completely sure because the booths are usually enclosed with a sheet of glass between me and the immigration inspector, which prevents me from getting good line of sight to the desk.

I can usually tell what they do with the passport. 

The Chinese made it quite evident that they really do care who enters and leaves their country!  They were not messing around, and they had a lot of new technology at their fingertips.  What was interesting is that they actually have a screen where you can see the picture that is taken, and as they scan your passport and visa, there is a blank "form" that populates with your passport number, visa number, date/time of entry (when you are leaving), name, nationality, etc.  As soon as they snapped the photo, I saw what looked like a computer generated box form around my face, which is what leads me to believe they were using computer software to compare my face to the one in my passport. 

The coolest thing about China immigration though?  They have a series of 4 buttons you can push as you walk away to "rate" the level of service you received from the immigration officer!  Thorough, but relatively painless, polite greeting, but no nosy questions earned the officer who processed my entry an "excellent" (er, "big smiley face") rating. 

Is there any chance that Russia will ease up on that morass at any time within the foreseeable future (imagining a time, someday in the distant future, when there is a fixed crossing between Alaska and eastern Siberia)?

Something tells me that if Russia eases up, it will be due to increased cooperation with the EU, and not increased cooperation with the USA.  The EU is right up against Russia, and from a geographic perspective, it is more likely that bonds with the west will form with the EU first.  There are some concrete steps taking place...on the new train from Helsinki to St. Petersburg, border checks are done on-board while the train moves, as opposed to the train stopping and waiting while authorities pass through and clear the train.  baby steps....

Russia is known for having one of the toughest visa regimes in the world.  Visas are issued essentially for the duration of the trip, each city on your itinerary is listed on the visa, and you have to "register" the visa at any place you stay more than 3 days.  The visa is likely to expire within a few days of your intended departure, so one must be very careful to not overstay, even by a few minutes!  You need an itinerary for your trip, and theoretically a hotel booking for every night in Russia.  What happens is the visa expediters will sell you all the supporting documentation you need....including making a "reservation" for each night you are in the country.  Of course, the "reservation" is only there on paper in case someone calls to ask about it...otherwise, once the visa is issued, you are free to make your own arrangements as long as it is in a city listed on your visa. 

China and many other countries used to be that strict, but they quickly realized they need business and leisure travelers, so they can't impose such harsh rules.  As far as I can tell, China makes you get the visa simply because they want to check you out in advance....something that I have no doubt will be able to be done electronically in the future, much like the Australian ETA and US ESTA system.  I'm sure the visa refusal rate for Americans is low.  The other reason China and other countries want you to get visas is reciprocity fees.  A Chinese visa costs $30, unless you have an American passport, in which case it costs $140.  Why?  Because the USA charges that much for a visa for Chinese citizens (British citizens usually get slammed with reciprocity fees too).  But at least Americans are pretty much going to get their visa for the money.  Chinese paying the fee get to put themselves on a wait list (sometimes months long) for an appointment at the Embassy/Consulate where their getting a US visa may very well depend on the mood of the officer on that particular day.  No visa, sorry, no refund!  But even this could be streamlined...some countries like Chile don't bother with a visa for Americans, they just set up a booth before passport control where they collect the $140 and give you a receipt good for the life of the passport!  "We won't bother you with a visa, we just want the money!!"

So, in otherwords, they really could simplify things if they want to, and once Russia starts to become more business and traveler friendly, it will happen.  When that happens, who knows. 

[J N Winkler]

Interesting bit of trivia:  if you have a sleeper berth on the Lisbon-Madrid train, they ask you for your passport when you check in.  I suspect this is more analogous to hotel registration than immigration control per se.

More on Schengen information-sharing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Information_System

The consensus on the interwebs seems to be that passports are, in fact, scanned at Schengen border crossings, but no-one seems to know for sure whether the data collected allows the authorities to detect overstayers.  The suggestion that seems most plausible to me is that the current version of SIS does not have this capability while SIS II (scheduled for rollout in 2013) will.  And of course scanned data can be routed to different databases and repurposed endlessly.

Countries and their immigration inspectors vary widely in how aggressively they go after overstayers.  My experience leaving Berlin last August, which matches that of a friend who regularly flies in and out of Cologne and Düsseldorf, is that the Germans take pains to match up stamps and go through passports with jewelers' loupes.

[kkt]

I think some of you are using different U.S.-Canadian border crossings than I do.  At Peace Arch, about a year ago, we had to wait 3 1/2 hours to return to the U.S.  Our contact with the officer was quick and easy after presenting our passports, but the wait was never explained.  Also the electronic signs that are supposed to show wait times weren't working.  Even other times the wait to enter the U.S. is rarely less than 45 minutes.

It made me wish for the old days when it was a reasonable thing if you were in Bellingham to drive up to Vancouver to do a little shopping and have lunch and then come back.  Now it's all expensive papers and long waits, you'd think we were crossing from west to east Germany in 1962, and being held up at the Eastern side.

[english si]

I believe Russia is a lot easier than Belarus for visas - it's Belarus where the queues build up. Once in Belarus, it's an open border with Russia, but you still need a separate visa, so it's awkward.

I don't get any passport stamps in Western Europe.

[agentsteel53]

The coolest thing about China immigration though?  They have a series of 4 buttons you can push as you walk away to "rate" the level of service you received from the immigration officer!  Thorough, but relatively painless, polite greeting, but no nosy questions earned the officer who processed my entry an "excellent" (er, "big smiley face") rating. 

China has a vested interest in staying in business. 

[agentsteel53]

I think some of you are using different U.S.-Canadian border crossings than I do.  At Peace Arch, about a year ago, we had to wait 3 1/2 hours to return to the U.S. 

quite likely.  at US-97, the wait was about 15 minutes to get our 1-hour interrogation.  The same friend of mine and I once came back on the AB-93/US-93 crossing, and it took us 10 minutes, a couple of which were taken up by questions about our cameras purely out of curiosity.

[J N Winkler]

At US-97, the wait was about 15 minutes to get our 1-hour interrogation.

They must have been busy with the BC Bud smugglers.  When I crossed at US 97, there was no wait whatsoever, and the entry formalities were over within two minutes.  The immigration officer wanted to know about the Turkish visa stamp but I had to point at my ears and play dumb since I couldn't understand what exactly he was trying to ask.  He gave up and let me go.

In comparison, the Canadians always want to know about liquor, cigarettes, and goods consumed or left in Canada, and they are very good about writing their questions down.

[Brandon]

Never spent more than 15 minutes at Detroit or Port Huron, or even the one time I went through the Soo.  Of course, people do smuggle at those points.  It tends to be prescription drugs, toilets, and Cuban cigars.  Yes, I said toilets (the EPA approved ones don't flush worth, well, crap).  At Detroit, you have enough people commuting that long waits can't really be tolerated.

[mtantillo]

I think some of you are using different U.S.-Canadian border crossings than I do.  At Peace Arch, about a year ago, we had to wait 3 1/2 hours to return to the U.S.  Our contact with the officer was quick and easy after presenting our passports, but the wait was never explained.  Also the electronic signs that are supposed to show wait times weren't working.  Even other times the wait to enter the U.S. is rarely less than 45 minutes.

It made me wish for the old days when it was a reasonable thing if you were in Bellingham to drive up to Vancouver to do a little shopping and have lunch and then come back.  Now it's all expensive papers and long waits, you'd think we were crossing from west to east Germany in 1962, and being held up at the Eastern side.

Could be more timing than anything else.  If you go during the weekdays (non-commute times) or off hours on weekends, delays likely aren't going to be that bad.  If you go during peak commute time or weekend/holiday travel times, delays anywhere should be the norm.  But is waiting longer to cross the border really any different from it taking 3 hours to get from DC to Richmond on a Saturday and vice versa on Sunday (due to beach traffic)? 

[vdeane]

Now that the Central NJ meet is out of the way, I can finally type the longer reply this thread deserves.

If and when the differences between Canada and the USA can be worked out and the checkpoints removed, I'd love to see what transport connections would have to be 'fast track' upgraded to handle the increased traffic that would begin to show up almost immediately.

Not sure about fast tracked, but I imagine the Peace Bridge would need a second span and an upgraded interchange with I-190, ON 405 would need to get it's interchange that was torn down for the truck inspection line re-built, the Thousand Islands Bridge may or may not need upgrading, and all the St. Lawrence crossings would need minor improvements to handle the tourism.  Not much to be said for crossings in NY east of here but NY 276 would need to be straitened out and they may or may not reconnect US 9.  I imagine A-55 could then be upgraded to a full freeway in Stanstead, QC with half diamond interchanges on each side of the border connected by frontage roads (instead of the compressed folded diamond on I-91 and the divided highway A-55).

I'm used to having to show my passport, mainly from growing up in a communist country and waiting 17 hours (!) once at the Hungary/Austria border in 1985, so to me the passport requirement does not seem ridiculous at all.

And my attitude is formed from being used to the pre-9/11 conditions where customs between the US and Canada was just a formality.

The route using Hwy. 401 is 30 miles longer and has a driving time about 30 minutes longer.  If you tell them baldly that you want to go into Canada so you can take a different route with those time and distance penalties, of course you are asking for in-depth questioning and a secondary search, which you could probably avoid easily by saying that you are bound for Brookville for purposes of tourism.

Google's driving times seem to change with the wind.  There was a time when the ON 401 route showed up as five minutes faster.  Those times aren't really accurate anyways; The US 11 route actually takes 3h45m and the NY 12 route takes 4 hours exactly.  I take NY 12 typically because I hate the traffic on US 11; you're always stuck behind someone who wants to do 45-50 unless you travel at odd times.  My interest in the 401 route is because I heavily prefer driving on freeways to any other type of road.

PS: Don't forget the 5 dollars in bridge tolls for why this route is illogical for those without a strong preference towards freeways.

It isn't sugar-coating.  It is merely an exercise in keeping it simple.  They are looking for a simple reason you are going into Canada; they don't need to know that you are really going from one place in New York to another place in New York but are cutting into Canada because you are into roads and want to see Hwy. 401.  That information doesn't help them process you; unless they ask for it, it is extraneous.  Volunteering information without being asked for it encourages them to wonder what you are trying to hide.

As someone who has a hard time with anything other than telling "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", this is something I need to work on for more reasons than border crossings.  I tend to take "why are you going to Canada" exactly as the question reads and not "give me a reason to let you in with minimal processing time".  I also tend to process questions and behavior the exact same way in all situations, with is not the norm.  In terms of how I process communication, context doesn't even factor in.

Only Schengen has exit checks as a matter of routine.  Part of the purpose of the exit check is to make sure that non-EU tourists don't break the "90 in 180" rule (you may be in the Schengen area only 90 days out of the last 180).  The UK has sporadically operated exit checks, but these are cursory.

As far as I'm concerned, exit checks shouldn't exist, and rules like 90 in 180 shouldn't either.  One should not be banned from a country for a period of time just because they visited for a period of time, and exit checks make me think of police states that want to keep their citizens from escaping to freedom.

Things also worked a little differently in those days since states played a greater role in controlling movements across their borders.  In the early twentieth century, there were examples where Colorado expelled labor organizers, striking miners, and other troublemakers it did not want to prosecute by running them out to the Kansas state line and letting them go.  Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath makes mention of state-line checkpoints not just in California but also in Arizona.  That kind of state-level border enforcement is almost unknown today and part of the reason for that must be motorization combined with the Interstate network.  I'd also suspect that motorization has indirectly contributed to fortification of the border because improved highways to the border create the potential for large numbers of people to be shipped to the border at multiple points along its length (not just in one crossing place readily susceptible to official inspection, as with railroads), and that in turn invites control measures.

This was news to me.  I always wondered why the government never declared the California agricultural checkpoints unconstitutional.

A general rule of thumb is that the greater the income disparity is between two neighboring countries, the more emphasis the wealthier country will put on defending its border with the poorer country.  The wealth disparity between the US and Mexico in general (and indeed between the poorest US state and the richest Mexican state) is much greater than that between the EU and Turkey, for example.  I am not sure whether this disparity has been less in the past than it is now.

I heard about a bridge in NYC that has a high toll to keep people from a poor neighborhood from making frivolous trips to a rich neighborhood.

In comparison, the Canadians always want to know about liquor, cigarettes, and goods consumed or left in Canada, and they are very good about writing their questions down.

That they do.  When my AP Government/Politics class visited Ottawa, all they cared about was that we weren't smuggling in alcohol.  They didn't even care to see our passports or anything.  Granted, it helps that my school has organized the tour of parliament with an MP for years now.  Going back, we sat at customs for an hour as they scanned in everyone's passport individually.

Could be more timing than anything else.  If you go during the weekdays (non-commute times) or off hours on weekends, delays likely aren't going to be that bad.  If you go during peak commute time or weekend/holiday travel times, delays anywhere should be the norm.  But is waiting longer to cross the border really any different from it taking 3 hours to get from DC to Richmond on a Saturday and vice versa on Sunday (due to beach traffic)? 

Only in that border delays can be changed with the amount of effort it takes for Obama to sign something and beach delays can't.  Incidentally, it looks like Obama and Harper have re-started the plans to eliminate the border checkpoints.

[mtantillo]

I heard about a bridge in NYC that has a high toll to keep people from a poor neighborhood from making frivolous trips to a rich neighborhood.

Where'd you hear that one from?   

From Steve Anderson's site: http://www.nycroads.com/crossings/atlantic-beach/

Steve doesn't get into the rich/poor controversy, but that's definitely part of why the Atlantic Beach residents don't mind the toll.  To them, the ~$100 fee for the unlimited crossing decal is nothing, but the local residents of Far Rockaway would be hard pressed to come up with $2.50 (probably more now) in roundtrip tolls when they can go shop for whatever they wanted to shop for, or pursue their recreational interests in locations that do not require crossing the bridge.

My interest in the 401 route is because I heavily prefer driving on freeways to any other type of road.

I can understand that.  From the border agents' standpoint though, taking local roads is far less inconvenient than crossing the border twice to use a freeway.  In otherwords, they really don't encourage transit through another country unless you "have to"....i.e. Point Roberts or Detroit to Buffalo. 

My wanting to use TCH 2 in New Brunswick to get from Houlton to Madawaska certainly raised some eyebrows (until I threw in that as a traffic engineer, I wanted to see the longest covered bridge in the world).

As far as I'm concerned, exit checks shouldn't exist, and rules like 90 in 180 shouldn't either.  One should not be banned from a country for a period of time just because they visited for a period of time, and exit checks make me think of police states that want to keep their citizens from escaping to freedom.

Unfortunately, there is more at play here than meets the eye.  First, any soverign nation has a right to set rules about who can come in, who can't, and under what conditions.  Canada is very generous to Americans...give the border agent a legit reason to enter and you have access to the whole country.  The Schengen states in Europe are also easy to get in and out of.  Most other countries want to see that you intend to leave...you have a job that you are returning to, you have property, etc.  I'll get to that point later.  Some countries want you to pay a reciprocity fee before you can get in (USA charges Chileans $140 for a visa, Chileans charge Americans $140 to enter too).  Some countries want to check you out in advance (China, Russia, India, all make you get a visa in advance).  Some countries don't want to deal with you if you've traveled to certain other nations (many middle eastern countries deny entry to those with any evidence of travel to Israel).  Some countries have incredibly onerous requirements for Americans due to their national security concerns (Iran makes you have an escorted guide the entire time you are in Iran, if you are American, and...big if....if you get a visa).  Others just won't let you in, period (North Korea).  That is their right to do so. 

Why impose time limits?  Sometimes it is reciprocity in action again.  The USA only grants 30 day visas for tourism to citizens of country X, so country X only lets Americans stay for 30 days.  Other times, its based on residency rules.  The reason Canada and the UK have 6 month limits is because if you spend the majority of time in a year in their country, you are a resident, not a visitor.  That is a totally different process. 

Why limit the people coming into the country?  Unfortunately, there isn't enough money to go around.  Many people from foreign countries would come here and apply for jobs asking 10% of what the prevailing wage is.  To them, its no big deal, because they are used to living in poor conditions in their home country, but then Americans who are used to much better conditions would be forced to either take a huge pay cut, or not have a job at all.  There just aren't enough people hiring, and there aren't enough jobs to support the people who want them, so we provide access to them for our own citizens first.  But really, the entire world is better off if the majority of people from other countries work in their home country.  If you are driven enough to immigrate, imagine what great things you could do to improve your own country?  Fix the problems, don't run away from them.  Many nations experience brain drain as their smartest young people move away.

The exit checks, I have mixed feelings on them.  Some are there simply to detect overstayers.  Some are there simply to record that you've left.  Some are there to ensure you are not wanted by law enforcement in that country prior to leaving it.  Only a few countries still restrict their citizens from leaving.  There are some legit reasons to do so (wanted by law enforcement, need to serve in the military, owe taxes), and there are not so legit reasons.  The USA has exit checks.  You just don't see them.  But customs has the flight manifests, and will go over them to see who plans on leaving, and if those people are wanted for any reason.  If so, they are usually stopped before the plane leaves US soil.  Everyone else can go out with their trip and not need to worry about what US authorities do behind the scenes. 

This was news to me.  I always wondered why the government never declared the California agricultural checkpoints unconstitutional.

My guess is that the California Agriculture inspectors are doing their job and not straying into grey areas.  They simply ask if you have plants, fruits, or other agriculture products.  And then you are on your way.  Their focus is on prevention of the introduction of diseases into California.  If you have an item that you are not supposed to bring into California, you surrender it and proceed.  You are not fined, and its not a "gotcha" operation.  You don't hear about people being held up for hours at a time or having their vehicles dismantled at an Ag. check in California because it doesn't happen. 

I actually find California's to be much less invasive than Hawaii's, where you actually have to fill out a written declaration.  The State of Hawaii inspects all domestic (and Canadian pre-cleared) flights entering the state, and the US Department of Agriculture inspects outbound flights.  US Customs (Agriculture inspectors are from USDA too) inspects incoming international flights, and outgoing international flights are considered the problem of the destination country's authorities. 

That they do.  When my AP Government/Politics class visited Ottawa, all they cared about was that we weren't smuggling in alcohol.  They didn't even care to see our passports or anything.  Granted, it helps that my school has organized the tour of parliament with an MP for years now.  Going back, we sat at customs for an hour as they scanned in everyone's passport individually.

School groups that are chaperoned by adults have less stringent requirements than other travelers.  The "photo ID not needed" rule applies up to 18 instead of cutting off at 16.  I doubt the entire delay was to scan passports, that can be done quickly....it was probably them entering info for those without passports and/or searching the bus that accounted for the majority of the delay. 

Only in that border delays can be changed with the amount of effort it takes for Obama to sign something and beach delays can't.  Incidentally, it looks like Obama and Harper have re-started the plans to eliminate the border checkpoints.

Obama and Canadian authorities must agree.  This after laws are passed by Congress.  Then the Federal rulemaking process starts to work out the nitty-gritty details of exactly how the law will be implemented.  So while it is true that it could be easily eliminated, it won't happen overnight. 

Do you have any details of the new plans?  I'd be curious. 

[agentsteel53]

My guess is that the California Agriculture inspectors are doing their job and not straying into grey areas.  They simply ask if you have plants, fruits, or other agriculture products.  And then you are on your way.  Their focus is on prevention of the introduction of diseases into California.  If you have an item that you are not supposed to bring into California, you surrender it and proceed.  You are not fined, and its not a "gotcha" operation.  You don't hear about people being held up for hours at a time or having their vehicles dismantled at an Ag. check in California because it doesn't happen. 

nah, all the unconstitutional stuff is the border patrol's responsibility.  there are border patrol vehicles and agents in the shadows on the I-8, I-10, and even I-40 (well beyond 100 miles north of the Mexican border) aggie stations. 

a friend of mine got pulled over on I-40, within 200 feet after the aggies let her go, and was subjected to a secondary questioning, similar to what she would've gotten at an internal checkpoint on, say, I-8, which was overtly manned by the border patrol.

[J N Winkler]

But really, the entire world is better off if the majority of people from other countries work in their home country.  If you are driven enough to immigrate, imagine what great things you could do to improve your own country?  Fix the problems, don't run away from them.

The difficulty with that viewpoint (which is otherwise respectable) is that many people who immigrate do not have realistic opportunities to improve their own country.  This is especially true for people who have to flee because they are in danger for their lives and it is why there is an UN convention governing refugees and asylum.

Moreover, highly developed countries tend to favor policies which encourage immigration and thus indirectly contribute to immigration crises.  We don't like countries to close their markets to goods and services that we export, for example, so we act aggressively to discourage tariffs and other forms of trade protection, which makes it very difficult for developing countries to promote their own economic growth through technology transfer and import substitution.

Also, highly developed countries in general tend to have some sectors of their economies, often underground, which generate demand for immigrant labor because it can be retained on terms so abusive they would be unacceptable to native-born citizens.  Sectors of this kind include manufacture and sale of illegal drugs, prostitution and other sexual services, agricultural labor (fruit-picking etc.).  For a variety of institutional and public-policy reasons it is unrealistic to expect the demand for immigrant labor in these sectors to be abolished through a combination of regulatory and technological changes.  Fruit-picking could be automated, prostitution could be legalized in a way which harshly penalizes abuse of sex workers, drugs could be at least partially legalized with controls as to purity and habit formation, etc., but reforms of this kind are at best improbable.

Put simply, "Stay in your own country and improve it" is so often a counsel of perfection that I don't think it really works as a general justification of immigration protectionism.

Many nations experience brain drain as their smartest young people move away.

That kind of brain drain is often facilitated by highly developed Western countries.  For example, many African countries have nurse shortages because their trainee nurses have been recruited by the National Health Service in Britain.

In general, sovereignty gives nation-states the power to impose "beggar thy neighbor" policies but it does not remove the moral duty to exercise that sovereignty responsibly.

[mtantillo]

But really, the entire world is better off if the majority of people from other countries work in their home country.  If you are driven enough to immigrate, imagine what great things you could do to improve your own country?  Fix the problems, don't run away from them.

The difficulty with that viewpoint (which is otherwise respectable) is that many people who immigrate do not have realistic opportunities to improve their own country.  This is especially true for people who have to flee because they are in danger for their lives and it is why there is an UN convention governing refugees and asylum.

Moreover, highly developed countries tend to favor policies which encourage immigration and thus indirectly contribute to immigration crises.  We don't like countries to close their markets to goods and services that we export, for example, so we act aggressively to discourage tariffs and other forms of trade protection, which makes it very difficult for developing countries to promote their own economic growth through technology transfer and import substitution.

Also, highly developed countries in general tend to have some sectors of their economies, often underground, which generate demand for immigrant labor because it can be retained on terms so abusive they would be unacceptable to native-born citizens.  Sectors of this kind include manufacture and sale of illegal drugs, prostitution and other sexual services, agricultural labor (fruit-picking etc.).  For a variety of institutional and public-policy reasons it is unrealistic to expect the demand for immigrant labor in these sectors to be abolished through a combination of regulatory and technological changes.  Fruit-picking could be automated, prostitution could be legalized in a way which harshly penalizes abuse of sex workers, drugs could be at least partially legalized with controls as to purity and habit formation, etc., but reforms of this kind are at best improbable.

Put simply, "Stay in your own country and improve it" is so often a counsel of perfection that I don't think it really works as a general justification of immigration protectionism.

Let me clarify....what I said above absolutely does not apply to anyone who is going to be persecuted or abused by their home country's government, and I fully support the asylum system for those with bona-fide cases.  That is totally different than voluntary immigration. 

While the EU and the USA are all highly developed countries that do promote legal immigration (and should continue to do so), we cannot support *unlimited* immigration.  And we really do need to be able to screen those legal immigrants to ensure that they are in fact good people with good intentions.  Much of that limiting the number and pre-screening takes place behind the scenes, but it is up to the border guards to be the last line of defense and ensure that those coming in have gone through the necessary screening and procedures. 

So while we could and should have a data-sharing system with Canada to keep bad people (criminals, terrorists, etc.) out of North America entirely, the fact is that there are always going to be cases where one of the two countries will allow someone in and the other one does not want that person to enter.  That is why I don't see the US/Canada border being opened up as a free-for-all anytime soon, there needs to be some form of cursory check to keep out those who one country finds desireable enough to let in, but the other country either finds objectionable or just hasn't had a chance to check them out yet. 

I do not see the Mexican border opening up anytime in the forseeable future.  There are areas right next to the border that are experiencing high levels of lawlessness at the present time.  The border is definitely needed to keep those elements out of the USA.  But I do, of course, support programs that speed up the processing of legitimate Mexican visitors and returning Americans. 

[mgk920]

This was news to me.  I always wondered why the government never declared the California agricultural checkpoints unconstitutional.

Reading the USA Constitution, a provision in Article I, Section 10, paragraph 2 appears to support state-level inspection laws.  The 'California Customs' ag stops are, IMHO, covered by that.

Only in that border delays can be changed with the amount of effort it takes for Obama to sign something and beach delays can't.  Incidentally, it looks like Obama and Harper have re-started the plans to eliminate the border checkpoints.

Ditto on the links for this, I'm also curious.

Mike

[J N Winkler]

In the nineteenth century frontiers were generally unpoliced.  Those days are gone, never to return, for many of the same reasons we are happy we don't actually live in the nineteenth century:  easy transport and, in countries with high incomes per head, a generally high standard of living which is supported in part by generous provision of social services.

[mgk920]

Only in that border delays can be changed with the amount of effort it takes for Obama to sign something and beach delays can't.  Incidentally, it looks like Obama and Harper have re-started the plans to eliminate the border checkpoints.

Ditto on the links for this, I'm also curious.

Doing a Google search on the term: "usa canada border strong perimeter" has returned links to numerous 2011-dated articles.  I'll spend some time going over them.

Mike

[vdeane]

I heard about a bridge in NYC that has a high toll to keep people from a poor neighborhood from making frivolous trips to a rich neighborhood.

Where'd you hear that one from?   

Just something I heard at the Central NJ Meet... may have read too much into it.

I can understand that.  From the border agents' standpoint though, taking local roads is far less inconvenient than crossing the border twice to use a freeway.  In otherwords, they really don't encourage transit through another country unless you "have to"....i.e. Point Roberts or Detroit to Buffalo. 

My wanting to use TCH 2 in New Brunswick to get from Houlton to Madawaska certainly raised some eyebrows (until I threw in that as a traffic engineer, I wanted to see the longest covered bridge in the world).

Hence why I wouldn't actually do it unless border checkpoints were removed.

[Bigmikelakers]

Looks like they're finally going to realign I-5 to meet with the El Chaparral border crossing in two months.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/border-baja-california/sd-me-san-ysidro-vehcles-20170717-story.html