News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

San Ysidro Border Crossing Expansion

Started by Bigmikelakers, February 25, 2011, 02:16:45 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Bigmikelakers

Looks like southbound I-5 will be rerouted to the west to a new Mexican border crossing and the current southbound lanes will be used for extra northbound lanes entering the US. Wish they would make a new western border crossing by extending the 905 to meet up with the 1D on the Mexican side but, that won't happen.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_usa_mexico_border

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


Bigmikelakers


mtantillo

Actually, the "new" SB crossing is really the old Virginia Avenue truck crossing.  It has been disused ever since all trucks were routed to Otay Mesa. 

As I understand it, not only will there be more northbound inspection booths, but the booths will be tandem booths allowing significant increases in capacity (but not double...it is slightly inefficient as the front or rear person may finish inspection sooner than the person in the other booth...meaning you either have an empty front booth or a person in the rear booth waiting for the front booth to clear (likely, customs would just hold them and continue asking qustions until the front booth clears). 

Also interesting...primary inspection booths in the SB direction on the US side? 

Bigmikelakers

Quote from: mtantillo on August 08, 2011, 02:00:57 PM
Also interesting...primary inspection booths in the SB direction on the US side? 

I think thats meant to monitor stolen cars and illegal guns into Mexico. The way southbound I-5 will be rerouted I wish they would build a connector to Route 1-D across the river to allow easier access down to Rosarito and Ensenada.

NE2

Quote from: Bigmikelakers on August 08, 2011, 02:17:17 PM
The way southbound I-5 will be rerouted I wish they would build a connector to Route 1-D across the river to allow easier access down to Rosarito and Ensenada.
Your third image appears to show exactly this.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

Bigmikelakers

Quote from: NE2 on August 08, 2011, 02:53:45 PM
Your third image appears to show exactly this.

Wow, I just noticed that. Cant believe I didnt catch that.

Stephane Dumas

Interesting! :)

I wonder if there might be some upgrades at others border crossings in along CA-7 or CA-905 (future I-905)?

mtantillo

Quote from: Stephane Dumas on August 09, 2011, 11:20:37 AM
Interesting! :)

I wonder if there might be some upgrades at others border crossings in along CA-7 or CA-905 (future I-905)?

Other crossings don't have nearly the delays that San Ysidro does. 

Even though, some of the delays experienced at almost every other Mexican border crossing would be considered intollerable at a Canadian border crossing if it happened regularly.  At a Canadian crossing, the expectation is that you arrive at the inspection booth with no more than a 15 minute wait during peak times....at a Mexican crossing, 45+ minute waits are the norm.

Brandon

Quote from: mtantillo on August 09, 2011, 12:17:27 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on August 09, 2011, 11:20:37 AM
Interesting! :)

I wonder if there might be some upgrades at others border crossings in along CA-7 or CA-905 (future I-905)?

Other crossings don't have nearly the delays that San Ysidro does. 

Even though, some of the delays experienced at almost every other Mexican border crossing would be considered intollerable at a Canadian border crossing if it happened regularly.  At a Canadian crossing, the expectation is that you arrive at the inspection booth with no more than a 15 minute wait during peak times....at a Mexican crossing, 45+ minute waits are the norm.

A 45 minute wait time at Detroit-Windsor would cause rioting, it's considered so intolerable.  I have no idea why they put up with that crap at San Diego-Tijuana.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

vdeane

Because the federal government has conditioned people to fear Mexico; plus, people down there probably don't know any better.  I can't conceive of how anyone could ever have a more than half hour wait at customs unless it was a very heavy travel day or something was very wrong; conversely, they probably can't conceive of how a customs wait could by anything less than an hour unless the government stopped all border enforcement.

Personally, I'd do the following on the borders:
-Eliminate border controls completely between the US and Canada if you have nothing to declare, like in Europe
-Eliminate interior checkpoints
-End the war on drugs and reform immigration to reduce illegal crossings
-Reform customs on the Mexican border so we're doing smarter enforcement (not letting illegals in to justify interior checkpoints, not inconveniencing everyone else unless necessary)
-Work with Mexico with the long-term goal to make their border like the Canadian border
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

mtantillo

Quote from: deanej on August 11, 2011, 12:36:23 PM
Because the federal government has conditioned people to fear Mexico; plus, people down there probably don't know any better.  I can't conceive of how anyone could ever have a more than half hour wait at customs unless it was a very heavy travel day or something was very wrong; conversely, they probably can't conceive of how a customs wait could by anything less than an hour unless the government stopped all border enforcement.

Personally, I'd do the following on the borders:
-Eliminate border controls completely between the US and Canada if you have nothing to declare, like in Europe
-Eliminate interior checkpoints
-End the war on drugs and reform immigration to reduce illegal crossings
-Reform customs on the Mexican border so we're doing smarter enforcement (not letting illegals in to justify interior checkpoints, not inconveniencing everyone else unless necessary)
-Work with Mexico with the long-term goal to make their border like the Canadian border

Not so fast on eliminating the Canadian border.  They have VERY different immigration and taxation laws than the USA.  I imagine the USA wants to keep the border controls for immigration reasons (Canada is much more liberal in that regard), and Canada wants to keep the border controls for customs purposes (Canada has much higher taxes, including a VAT on most goods).  That would, in effect, be giving up some of our soverignty to Canada. 

The guys at the border are pretty good.  They ask the same general questions regardless of if you are entering your own country or the other country, with the purpose being to establish the purpose/reason for your trip and see if you are telling a straight, consistant, believable story.  If yes, the border controls will keep you for less than a minute.  If no, then they will search you.  This is actually quite effective. 

I could imagine a "fast lane" for people with nothing to declare, but there already kind of is one...when you get to the inspection booth, if you have nothing to declare and are otherwise deemed to be admissible and not a threat, you are waved into the country.  If you either say you have something to declare (that involves payment of duty, equivalent to using the "red" channel at a European airport), or if you say you have nothing to declare but arouse suspicions (equivalent to using the "green channel" at a European airport and being pulled for a random check), then you get sent to secondary. 

Its far more efficient than any other land border I've ever seen, most of which require everyone to park, get out of the car, and do paperwork.  And we do have fast passes for those who commute regularly, but of course they have to be properly vetted by the authorities, and rightfully so, we have to be able to trust them to zip back and forth across the border with minimal questioning.  They should expand these programs. 

As for other suggestions, no matter how much you reform immigration, there will always be more people that want to come here than can be accomodated. 

I think the Mexican border could be more like the Canadian border.  But, it suffers from two problems.  1) sheer volume.  The number of vehicles and people crossing the Mexican border is probably an order of magnitude higher than the Canadian border.  People from Mexico come over to the USA to go shopping for basic necessities which are not as easily available in Mexico, whereas you don't have that issue in Canada.  People who are Mexican citizens who live in Mexico and work in the USA cross daily...because although their work permit entitles them to live in the USA, the cost of living is an order of magnitude cheaper in Mexico (you do not have that disparity with Canada).  and 2) Documentation requirements are stricter, and the line of questioning for Mexicans entering the USA is likely tougher, because Mexicans are more likely to overstay or never return than Canadians, apparently.  So while the average US or Canadian citizen can be processed quickly, the average processing time for a Mexican Citizen is likely longer and enough so that it causes a longer delay. 

So, there you have the reason for longer delays at the southern border than the norther border.  But still, San Ysidro stands out.  When the average Mexican border delay is half an hour, San Ysidro is at an hour.  Drring peak times when waits are closer to 45 minutes elsewhere, San Ysidro is approaching two hours.  Hopefully they will also expand the pedestrian crossing area, as even that wait can be quite long!

J N Winkler

Quote from: mtantillo on August 11, 2011, 07:11:58 PMI think the Mexican border could be more like the Canadian border.  But, it suffers from two problems.  1) sheer volume.  The number of vehicles and people crossing the Mexican border is probably an order of magnitude higher than the Canadian border.  People from Mexico come over to the USA to go shopping for basic necessities which are not as easily available in Mexico, whereas you don't have that issue in Canada.  People who are Mexican citizens who live in Mexico and work in the USA cross daily...because although their work permit entitles them to live in the USA, the cost of living is an order of magnitude cheaper in Mexico (you do not have that disparity with Canada).  and 2) Documentation requirements are stricter, and the line of questioning for Mexicans entering the USA is likely tougher, because Mexicans are more likely to overstay or never return than Canadians, apparently.  So while the average US or Canadian citizen can be processed quickly, the average processing time for a Mexican citizen is likely longer and enough so that it causes a longer delay.

The sheer volume of crossings by itself does not explain why the wait is longer on average than at the Canadian border.  Moreover, the increased time to process each individual Mexican once he or she faces a Customs officer or immigration inspector does not explain why Americans also experience longer waits when they return to the US from Mexico than they do from Canada.  Explaining the long waits requires a deeper understanding of how immigration and Customs procedures are equipped at both borders.

Waiting is essentially a rationing mechanism.  The long waits (starting from back of queue to first contact with US officialdom) can result from physical constraints, understaffing, or a combination of the two.  My own experience has been that any major crossing on either border is to be avoided except in the very small hours of the morning.  There are a number of minor crossings on both borders where the wait is generally short to nonexistent but there is some potential for surge congestion.  My experience has been that this congestion is more likely to happen on the Mexican border.  In addition to the reasons already cited (Mexicans commuting from Mexico, Mexicans coming to the US to shop), I believe that surge congestion happens partly because Mexicans are more likely than Americans or Canadians to cross the border by coach instead of private car.  Because immigration inspectors work by shift, the US cannot suddenly add inspection capacity when a bus arrives, and so a single bus can jack up waiting times for everyone by 15 minutes or more, even at a rural crossing which is so far from the nearest large city that it handles little to no commuting traffic.

There are institutional reasons as well.  There is a high degree of cooperation between the US and Canada on the border, with many shared-shed Customs facilities jointly developed by the US GSA and its Canadian counterpart, and occasional cross-staffing (Americans standing in for Canadian officers and vice versa).  In contradistinction, there is very little trust between the US and Mexico at the Mexican border and neither US nor Mexican officials have free run of their counterparts' facilities on the other side of the border.  I had a lesson in how this works when my battery went flat at Nogales just shy of the US border.  I went to the immigration office on the US side with my passport to explain the situation and ask for help, and an immigration officer was dispatched with a battery charger, but nothing could happen until I actually pushed my car over the tire shredders and got it onto US soil.  Neither the officer nor the battery charger (US Government property, presumably) could set foot in Mexico.  (Ironically enough, in order to push my car into the US I had help from Mexican trinket vendors, who had scaled the eight-foot-high fences separating the corredor fiscal from the surrounding countryside so they could walk among the waiting cars hawking tea-tray images of the Virgin of Guadalupe.  Once my car was on the correct side of the line, they melted away before I had a chance to thank them.)

In short, the Canadian border is essentially similar to an intra-EU frontier pre-Schengen, while on the Mexican border we are trying to operate something similar to the Berlin Wall without the mantraps and the shoot-to-kill order.  It is possible to operate even such a heavily patrolled frontier without significant crossing delays but it requires a considerable amount of infrastructure, which is hard to put in place in the physically constrained locations where of course the majority of the crossing traffic is.  The ongoing staffing costs are huge also, especially when surge capacity is taken into consideration.

The East Germans managed to operate efficient and quick border crossings in Berlin but this required extensive architectural modifications at many of the crossing points.  They also had more incentive to facilitate quick border crossings than we do, since they depended on casual visitors from the West as an important source of hard currency.  They helped West Berliners evade West German liquor taxes, so of course the West Berliners had to be able to get to the liquor shops easily.  East Berlin also had the entirety of the pre-World War II museums district and had to be maintained as a viable day-trip destination for Western tourists who would change currency at the official exchange rate.

Aside from the logistical implications of trying to operate a highly secured frontier with no cooperation from the neighboring country, territorial representation disproportionately favors states on the northern border.  In the US Senate there are 20 senators whose states have land frontier crossings with Canada (more like 24 if water boundaries are taken into consideration).  In contradistinction, the states on the Mexican border have just eight.  Moreover, although the US operates internal checkpoints just south of the Canadian border, the inspection regime is so light that it is normal to drive south without being checked anywhere (I personally haven't been on any of my car trips south of Canada).  On the other hand, the regime is much tighter at the southern border and it is very difficult to route northward without passing by at least one checkpoint.  These checkpoints are operated by the Border Patrol, which is administratively separate from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and by themselves cause considerable delays.

What this means is that travelers who are steamed about delays coming from Canada have more senators to complain to and all the resulting flak is squarely targeted at ICE.  On the other hand, travelers coming from Mexico are more likely to be Mexican and so to have no standing to complain, there are fewer senators to complain to, and ICE has little incentive to do anything because the Border Patrol can be counted on to absorb a large share of the blame.

As a result, journalistic accounts of the southern border (e.g. Ken Ellington's Hard Line) stress that conditions at the southern border always come last on the decision-makers' lists of priorities.  Allowing people (even returning Americans) to enter the US at the south with minimum delay and encroachment on basic human rights is always of lower priority than keeping the drugs out, keeping the illegal immigrants out, keeping the (supposed) unsafe trucks out, keeping the cheap labor out, keeping the guns in, etc.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

mtantillo

Interesting analysis of the issue, Mr. Winkler. 

I think what it comes down to is that the USA and Canada are similar enough that people don't HAVE TO cross the border.  So we try to make it easy to cross so that when people choose to cross, its a relatively painless process. 

The USA and Mexico are not very similar, and many people have to cross in order to go shopping, go to work, etc.   Since they have to, and since the wait is not going to stop them, there is no incentive to fix the problems, since doing so would cost money and its easier to say "just let them wait". 


vdeane

Quote from: mtantillo on August 11, 2011, 07:11:58 PM

Not so fast on eliminating the Canadian border.  They have VERY different immigration and taxation laws than the USA.  I imagine the USA wants to keep the border controls for immigration reasons (Canada is much more liberal in that regard), and Canada wants to keep the border controls for customs purposes (Canada has much higher taxes, including a VAT on most goods).  That would, in effect, be giving up some of our soverignty to Canada. 

From what I've heard, Canada has been tightening their immigration policies as of late.  Plus, it's a myth that the 9/11 terrorists came from Canada.

QuoteThe guys at the border are pretty good.  They ask the same general questions regardless of if you are entering your own country or the other country, with the purpose being to establish the purpose/reason for your trip and see if you are telling a straight, consistant, believable story.  If yes, the border controls will keep you for less than a minute.  If no, then they will search you.  This is actually quite effective. 

The existence of the border is a major hinderance to roadgeeking.  There are many roads that I will almost certainly never clinch because of it (I-87, US 11, I-89, I-91, I-95).  It's also an issue for those of us that live near the border, because all of the good east-west roads nearby are in Canada.  For example, here's how most people go from Rochester to my college: http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=Rochester,+NY&daddr=42.95781,-76.92665+to:44.04498,-75.87001+to:Potsdam,+NY&hl=en&ll=43.739352,-75.964966&spn=2.464508,3.795776&sll=43.98491,-75.675201&sspn=0.613614,0.948944&geocode=FcaVkgIdVsBf-ylTsxSWBbPWiTEe5iVB_B8AWg%3BFfJ7jwIdRjFq-yklvxpar87QiTFwVL5KUd9SsA%3BFbQSoAIdxlB6-ykdf_-XinnYiTGHyGF4ffhXNQ%3BFVSbqQIdROCH-ymX49JWxmDMTDF7W1LuRXR3jQ&mra=dpe&mrsp=2&sz=10&via=1,2&z=8

Here's how I typically go: http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=Rochester,+NY&daddr=42.95781,-76.92665+to:44.31048,-75.94365+to:Potsdam,+NY&hl=en&ll=44.339565,-75.385437&spn=1.219861,1.897888&sll=44.073774,-75.533752&sspn=1.225377,1.897888&geocode=FcaVkgIdVsBf-ylTsxSWBbPWiTEe5iVB_B8AWg%3BFfJ7jwIdRjFq-yklvxpar87QiTFwVL5KUd9SsA%3BFdAfpAIdHjF5-ykTEh40rjnNTDFVnA_x1Ra5oA%3BFVSbqQIdROCH-ymX49JWxmDMTDF7W1LuRXR3jQ&mra=dvme&mrsp=2&sz=9&via=1,2&z=9

Here's how I would like to go but can't because of the border patrols (yeah, try telling a customs officer that the only reason you're going to Canada is ON 401; it's likely to get you detained and searched; even a roadmeet would make me nervous): http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=Rochester,+NY&daddr=42.95781,-76.92665+to:44.36918,-75.97911+to:Potsdam,+NY&hl=en&ll=44.227488,-75.509033&spn=1.22219,1.897888&sll=44.363133,-75.709534&sspn=0.609691,0.948944&geocode=FcaVkgIdVsBf-ylTsxSWBbPWiTEe5iVB_B8AWg%3BFfJ7jwIdRjFq-yklvxpar87QiTFwVL5KUd9SsA%3BFRwFpQIdmqZ4-ymZFh0XpkDNTDEyIHw53k7ypg%3BFVSbqQIdROCH-ymX49JWxmDMTDF7W1LuRXR3jQ&mra=dvme&mrsp=2&sz=10&via=1,2&z=9

Yeah, I'm one of those people who doesn't know how to sugarcoat the truth to make it easier for other people to understand (and I think differently than most people do, so this extends even beyond unconventional interests like roads).  And these days it's even considered impractical to cut through Canada between NY and Michigan, once considered a no-brainer.

Also, just ask the residents of Derby Lane, VT or Stanstead, QC how they feel about the border.  Before 9/11, customs between the US and Canada were just a formality.  Then the US government got paranoid.  My family travels to Canada much less frequently than we used to due to stricter border requirements (including the ridiculous passport requirement).

European countries hate each other and they managed to eliminate the borders.  Meanwhile, the US and Canada are BFFs and we have a passport requirement. They even have the same immigration "issues" that Canada does.

QuoteIts far more efficient than any other land border I've ever seen, most of which require everyone to park, get out of the car, and do paperwork. 
What about Europe?
QuoteAnd we do have fast passes for those who commute regularly, but of course they have to be properly vetted by the authorities, and rightfully so, we have to be able to trust them to zip back and forth across the border with minimal questioning.  They should expand these programs. 
Why should they even be necessary?  Maybe it's because I'm a globalist member of gen Y who can't understand the idea of people not wanting to all be one big happy family, but why should borders become barriers?  They're nothing more than lines on a map.

QuoteAs for other suggestions, no matter how much you reform immigration, there will always be more people that want to come here than can be accomodated. 
But they would be doing it LEGALLY instead of ILLEGALLY.  I've never understood why people would want to limit legal immigration.  You don't get to choose the country you're born in, why force people to stay in it?  IMO we shouldn't limit immigration except in the cases of REAL criminals (not the faux criminals our insane war on drugs (Prohibition II) and bureaucratic, red tape nightmare called immigration have created).  And by working with Mexico to improve their economy, less people would want to come here (most do for one reason and one reason only: there are no jobs in Mexico).

I'd also eliminate interior checkpoints.  They're an unconstitutional violation of the 4th amendment (driving is not reasonable suspicion for probable cause, no matter how much the corrupt supreme court wants it to).  I didn't even know we had them on the Canadian border until reading about the I-87 one on MTR, though recently my parents got delayed at one while heading north-east on US 11 between Canton and Potsdam.  The Constitution-free zone is unconstitutional.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

mgk920

#14
I've mentioned this before, too, that I had a short chat with a USA Customs guy in about 2004 or so and he flat out told me that Canada and the USA were on track to eliminate their mutual border checkpoints by about 2003 had the 2001-09-11 attack not happened.  The concept was called the 'Strong Perimeter', which would have operated much like the Schengen Zone in Europe and yes, the big hangup was (and still remains) Canada's refugee policies.

As for Europe, for those crossing into and out of the outer perimeter of the Schengen Zone (note that the UK, Ireland, Switzerland and a couple of other little specks are NOT in 'Schengen', but the paperwork and delays with them are hardly noticeable), the wait times and paperwork, including visa requirements, can be mind-boggling.  Entering/leaving Russia is especially nasty in that regard.  It is not unusual for big-rig trucks to have to wait several DAYS to cross between Schengen and Russia and the rest of non-Schengen eastern Europe.

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.

And YES, repealing the Drug War™ would go a loooooong way to making life and commerce much easier in North America.  Keep in mind that until about 1924, there were no controls of any kind on any of the USA's land borders.  For Mexicans coming into the USA for temporary employment, they would cross in a border town, walk a block or two to a USA consulate office, fill out a couple of simple registration forms and then be legally able to work in the USA.  It was the 18th Amendment (Prohibition of beverage alcohol) that brought on the first formal checkpoints.

Mike

agentsteel53

Quote from: deanej on August 12, 2011, 01:57:37 PM
And these days it's even considered impractical to cut through Canada between NY and Michigan, once considered a no-brainer.

I did the Windsor-Niagara run in 2003.  Upon entering Canada, I told them "just driving the fastest way to New York" and they let me through after a quick check of my passport.  Back in the US, I told them "just came from Windsor" and they nodded, and after a few brief questions on whether or not I had made any purchases, they let me go.  total time at both border stations (not counting lines), under two minutes.  and that's with my Hungarian passport and US green card, which occasionally gets a bit of an extra eyebrow.

this was technically after Sept. 11, 2001, but well before they really ratcheted up the security.

the last time I crossed in from Canada was on US-97 in Washington, and between my friend (US citizen) and I, it took us an hour, with a full sit-down interrogation.  But that's because I have a notation in my file with regard to the time I spent in ...

QuoteDerby Lane, VT or Stanstead, QC

yes, I crossed briefly into Canada to take a photo of an older-style STOP/ARRET sign.  I was in Canada for maybe 10 seconds, participated in no commercial activity, did not in any way threaten the sovereignty of either republic ... but, I was approached by US officers, told to report to the entry station, and after four hours (!) of interrogation, I was told in strict terms "stay out of Canada" (this by the US border patrol, who has no legal standing to order such a thing).  Was noted on my file, and every so often, this comes up.  It has never resulted in my denial of entry to a country (since I am a legal resident of the US, they cannot do that, and this incident is not on the records of any other country) but it is a pain in the ass. 

here I had thought that "casually crossing into Canada" was what everyone did in Derby Line, VT, but boy did I have my hindquarters handed to me just because I wanted a picture of that fucking stop sign.

Quote(including the ridiculous passport requirement)

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.  I figure, all right, fair enough, if I want to enter a new sovereign country, I should have a travel document.  I am morally opposed to such a thing, but I figure I should pick my battles, and that is one that I shouldn't contest. 

it's the US's internal checkpoints which really get on my nerves.  I somehow distinctly remember my family moving out of communist Hungary in the 1980s for the explicit purpose of never again having to go through a "your papers, please" style of interrogation.  But, if I want to travel I-8, staying entirely within the boundaries of the US, I have to either lie when they ask me if I am a citizen ... or to provide proof of my legal residence. 
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

J N Winkler

#16
Quote from: deanej on August 12, 2011, 01:57:37 PMFrom what I've heard, Canada has been tightening their immigration policies as of late.  Plus, it's a myth that the 9/11 terrorists came from Canada.

It is certainly true that the 9/11 terrorists didn't use Canada as their point of entry, but there have been other suspected terrorists who have tried to enter the US from Canada and been arrested--remember the guy several years ago who got arrested at the Peace Arch crossing?

QuoteHere's how I would like to go but can't because of the border patrols (yeah, try telling a customs officer that the only reason you're going to Canada is ON 401; it's likely to get you detained and searched; even a roadmeet would make me nervous):

http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=Rochester,+NY&daddr=42.95781,-76.92665+to:44.36918,-75.97911+to:Potsdam,+NY&hl=en&ll=44.227488,-75.509033&spn=1.22219,1.897888&sll=44.363133,-75.709534&sspn=0.609691,0.948944&geocode=FcaVkgIdVsBf-ylTsxSWBbPWiTEe5iVB_B8AWg%3BFfJ7jwIdRjFq-yklvxpar87QiTFwVL5KUd9SsA%3BFRwFpQIdmqZ4-ymZFh0XpkDNTDEyIHw53k7ypg%3BFVSbqQIdROCH-ymX49JWxmDMTDF7W1LuRXR3jQ&mra=dvme&mrsp=2&sz=10&via=1,2&z=9

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.

QuoteYeah, I'm one of those people who doesn't know how to sugarcoat the truth to make it easier for other people to understand (and I think differently than most people do, so this extends even beyond unconventional interests like roads).

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.

Quote
QuoteIts far more efficient than any other land border I've ever seen, most of which require everyone to park, get out of the car, and do paperwork.

What about Europe?

Crossing from one Schengen country to another is generally like crossing a state line in the US, or flying entirely domestically--you aren't stopped (unless the border is closed in an emergency, which the Schengen agreement allows) and you aren't routed through passport control at the airport.  The process is similar when crossing from Britain to Ireland, which together have a Common Travel Area which functions like Schengen.  Crossing from the UK to continental Europe or vice versa means passing between Schengenland and the CTA.  Under UK law (Immigration Act 1970) you are required to fill out a landing card with your name and arrival address unless you are an EU citizen.  In the other direction, you used to be required to fill out a landing card in some countries (e.g. France and Spain), but this is no longer required.  (The French and Spanish landing cards were of different sizes, asked for different information, and had different retention requirements.  The French national police would take the entire card when you entered France, while the Spanish national police would tear it along a perforation, hand you one of the pieces, and instruct you to keep it in your passport until you left Spain.  Other Schengen countries, like Sweden, did not require landing cards.)

Both Schengen and the CTA have entry checks.  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.  They can be carried out either by the UK immigration authorities or by the transport carriers.  The carriers have an incentive to do this because they can be fined up to £2000 for each person they bring to the UK who cannot be admitted because he or she does not have a valid passport.

Switzerland is now part of Schengen, but before it was, border posts were staffed on both sides of the Swiss border but vehicles were typically waved through without inspection.  The four times I have crossed were all in a Swiss-plated car and every time we were waved through; in practice I think cars would be singled out for inspection only if they were from outside the EEA.  (Switzerland is in the EEA but not the EU, though it is now in Schengen.)

Quote
QuoteAnd we do have fast passes for those who commute regularly, but of course they have to be properly vetted by the authorities, and rightfully so, we have to be able to trust them to zip back and forth across the border with minimal questioning.  They should expand these programs.

Why should they even be necessary?  Maybe it's because I'm a globalist member of gen Y who can't understand the idea of people not wanting to all be one big happy family, but why should borders become barriers?  They're nothing more than lines on a map.

Countries in general (not just the US) see their borders as a first line of defense against asymmetric attacks from abroad, such as terrorism, as well as a valuable tool in managing the economy.  Whether they are right to do so is a large question which real-world political systems in general are not well equipped to address.  In that sense enforced borders are a second-best substitute, much as managed trade is a second-best substitute for free trade.

Quote
QuoteAs for other suggestions, no matter how much you reform immigration, there will always be more people that want to come here than can be accommodated.

But they would be doing it LEGALLY instead of ILLEGALLY.  I've never understood why people would want to limit legal immigration.  You don't get to choose the country you're born in, why force people to stay in it?

Generally because various influential groups in our society--particularly the recent arrivals--see preventing new immigration (whether legal or not) as critical to maintaining their standard of living.  This is why I am never impressed by people who say:  "I am against immigration.  This is OK because my girlfriend is Hispanic, and she is even more against immigration than I am."

I'd also suggest looking up the Rivers of Blood speech to get an idea of how and why immigration (whether legal or not) can contribute to social tensions.

Quote from: mgk920 on August 12, 2011, 02:48:49 PMAnd YES, repealing the Drug War™ would go a loooooong way to making life and commerce much easier in North America.  Keep in mind that until about 1924, there were no controls of any kind on any of the USA's land borders.  For Mexicans coming into the USA for temporary employment, they would cross in a border town, walk a block or two to a USA consulate office, fill out a couple of simple registration forms and then be legally able to work in the USA.  It was the 18th Amendment (Prohibition of beverage alcohol) that brought on the first formal checkpoints.

I don't think it was just Prohibition.  Yes, Prohibition was a big reason for the interior checkpoints near Canada, but it was also during the mid-1920's that we extended immigration control to everybody, not just the Chinese (who were already covered by the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1885 and related statutes).  I am also pretty sure we must have had some mechanisms of control (at least on a temporary basis) prior to 1920 in order to avoid the spillover from the Mexican Revolution.

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.

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.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

agentsteel53

Quote from: J N Winkler on August 12, 2011, 03:52:45 PMThe wealth disparity between the US and Mexico in general (and indeed between the poorest US state and the richest Mexican state)

dunno how wealth correlates with Human Development Index (or, really, how reliable Human Development Index is) but Mississippi is the lowest rated of the US states, at .867... while Mexico's Distrito Federal is its highest, at .917.  (Baja California Sur is its highest-rated state, at .877)
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

mtantillo

Quote from: mgk920 on August 12, 2011, 02:48:49 PM
As for Europe, for those crossing into and out of the outer perimeter of the Schengen Zone (note that the UK, Ireland, Switzerland and a couple of other little specks are NOT in 'Schengen', but the paperwork and delays with them are hardly noticeable), the wait times and paperwork, including visa requirements, can be mind-boggling.  Entering/leaving Russia is especially nasty in that regard.  It is not unusual for big-rig trucks to have to wait several DAYS to cross between Schengen and Russia and the rest of non-Schengen eastern Europe.

Yikes!!! Didn't realize the eastern frontier of Europe was so bad!  I've crossed into and out of the Schengen Area a bunch of times over the past decade and a half.  Best and worst experience was in 2003 between the UK and France via ferry.  Entering France, my passport was only checked by the check-in clerk at the ferry terminal.  No other contact with British or French officials, just walked off the boat into France.  Leaving was a different story.  They closely examined my passport, asked me a bunch of questions in French which I couldn't understand, and searched my bag.  After 3 minutes, I was able to move on to the boarding area.  If I really felt like getting snappy with them, I would have answered their, "How long have you been in France?" with, "If you would have done your job and stamped my passport when I got here, you wouldn't have to ask me this question!!"  All other times entering/leaving Schengen have been in airports, and they generally just glance at the passport, glance at me, glance back at the passport, stamp it, and let me go.  Schengen borders are some of the easiest I've ever crossed.  One time, leaving Italy, the officer didn't bother to stamp it when leaving.  Next time, 10 months later, I entered France, and they stamped a barely legible entry stamp way in the back of my passport.  When I left Schengen on that trip via the Netherlands, the Dutch immigration officer saw my 10 month old entry stamp from Italy without a corresponding exit stamp, didn't even blink an eye, just stamped the exit stamp and I was on my way. 

Interesting note: Switzerland is part of Schengen, but NOT part of the EU.  Therefore they still maintain border posts.  There are no immigration checks, but instead they are screening for customs/goods laws.  But just randomly.  They essentially squeeze traffic down to a slow, single file, zig-zagging line where the officers get a quick glance and can pull people over if need be.  More of an annoyance than anything else, but probably a longer wait (crossing from Switzerland into Italy near Lugano.... due to the congestion caused by the slow traffic) than many times when I've crossed the USA/Canada border. 

mtantillo

Quote from: J N Winkler on August 12, 2011, 03:52:45 PM
Crossing from one Schengen country to another is generally like crossing a state line in the US, or flying entirely domestically--you aren't stopped (unless the border is closed in an emergency, which the Schengen agreement allows) and you aren't routed through passport control at the airport.  The process is similar when crossing from Britain to Ireland, which together have a Common Travel Area which functions like Schengen.  Crossing from the UK to continental Europe or vice versa means passing between Schengenland and the CTA.  Under UK law (Immigration Act 1970) you are required to fill out a landing card with your name and arrival address unless you are an EU citizen.  In the other direction, you used to be required to fill out a landing card in some countries (e.g. France and Spain), but this is no longer required.  (The French and Spanish landing cards were of different sizes, asked for different information, and had different retention requirements.  The French national police would take the entire card when you entered France, while the Spanish national police would tear it along a perforation, hand you one of the pieces, and instruct you to keep it in your passport until you left Spain.  Other Schengen countries, like Sweden, did not require landing cards.)


Wonder what you did with the landing card if you left Spain via another Schengen country?  No border agent to surrender the card to.  Or enter Spain through another Schengen country and depart directly from Spain...no card to surrender. 

The common travel area is slightly different from Schengen.  With Schengen, when you are admitted to one, you are admitted to all, and one Schengen visa is good for all Schengen countries if you visit multiple countries on a trip.  Ireland and the UK still require separate visas.  Being admitted to one absolutely does not entitle you to travel to the other and in fact if you mention to an immigration officer that you intend to travel to the other, expect to be denied entry to the first country.  They do look out for one another. 

Another key difference is length of stay.  The UK generally stamps US passports for 6 months.  Ireland only grants you enough days to cover your planned itinerary, generally one extra day in case of delayed departure...up to a max of 3 months.  This is written onto the huge (full page) entry stamp.  If you enter Ireland and go to the UK, you have to be out of the UK by the time written onto your Irish entry stamp (they will take those days into account too, as part of your itinerary), whereas if you enter the UK and travel on to Ireland, you are only permitted in Ireland for 3 months from the date you entered the UK (that is, if your passport isn't checked on entry to Ireland from the UK). 

Crossing from Ireland to the UK, as I understand it, passports are never checked.  Crossing from the UK to Ireland, your passport will be checked when entering via plane, maybe checked when entering by ferry, and then sporadically checked when entering by road or rail from Northern Ireland.  If they don't check you, you can stay until 3 months from the date you entered the UK.  If they do, its based on your itinerary (but presumably you are free to travel back to the UK for the remainder of the 6 months granted on entry). 

UK and Ireland both require landing cards from non EU/EEA citizens, and if you say you are traveling to the other country when entering the CTA, the landing card data is shared with the other country, electronically. 

J N Winkler

Quote from: mtantillo on August 12, 2011, 08:14:49 PMYikes!!! Didn't realize the eastern frontier of Europe was so bad!

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.

I have a friend (travelling on a British passport) who wanted to travel to an English-teaching job in Kazakhstan by rail and needed a Russian transit visa in addition to the visa and work permit for Kazakhstan.  In the end he wound up sending his passport to an expediting service to have the necessary documentation assembled prior to departure.

QuoteI've crossed into and out of the Schengen Area a bunch of times over the past decade and a half.  Best and worst experience was in 2003 between the UK and France via ferry.  Entering France, my passport was only checked by the check-in clerk at the ferry terminal.  No other contact with British or French officials, just walked off the boat into France.  Leaving was a different story.  They closely examined my passport, asked me a bunch of questions in French which I couldn't understand, and searched my bag.  After 3 minutes, I was able to move on to the boarding area.  If I really felt like getting snappy with them, I would have answered their, "How long have you been in France?" with, "If you would have done your job and stamped my passport when I got here, you wouldn't have to ask me this question!!"

The French never used to stamp passports for surface arrivals from the UK, either by ferry or Eurostar.  They do now, at least for Eurostar (I haven't tried going to Paris by coach since 2001; I hate coach travel).  The French and British now operate what are called "juxtaposed checkpoints."  When you leave London you clear French immigration before you board and get a Schengen entry stamp with "F" in stars and "LONDRES" as the name of the port.  Then when you leave Paris you first go through the Schengen exit check with French immigration, get the standard Schengen exit stamp, and then walk a few feet to British immigration, where (if you are cleared for entry to the UK) you get a standard British entry stamp with "PARIS" as the port of arrival--all before you board the train to the UK.

QuoteAll other times entering/leaving Schengen have been in airports, and they generally just glance at the passport, glance at me, glance back at the passport, stamp it, and let me go.  Schengen borders are some of the easiest I've ever crossed.  One time, leaving Italy, the officer didn't bother to stamp it when leaving.  Next time, 10 months later, I entered France, and they stamped a barely legible entry stamp way in the back of my passport.  When I left Schengen on that trip via the Netherlands, the Dutch immigration officer saw my 10 month old entry stamp from Italy without a corresponding exit stamp, didn't even blink an eye, just stamped the exit stamp and I was on my way.

How recent are these failures to match an entry stamp with an exit stamp?  I don't think the system is that loose or casual anymore.  It has been some time since Schengen (including the requirement to have comprehensive entry and exit checks) has had to be fully implemented, and judging by the behavior of immigration inspectors with my passport, I think some countries are depending on the stamps (not just whatever comes up on their screens when they scan the machine-readable zone) to check compliance with the 90 in 180 rule.  (Schengen countries are supposed to share information on arriving and departing passengers so that the passport stamp is not the only way to determine whether a non-EU national is in Schengen legally, but I suspect the necessary data-sharing relationships are still being worked out, and I have no idea if the information is updated in real time.  A possibly relevant factor is that the travellers who are considered most likely to be troublesome from the point of view of immigration come from countries whose passports do not comply with the ICAO passport standard and so do not have MRZs.)

When I was leaving Berlin last August at Schönefeld Airport, bound for London, the Bundespolizei agent checking my passport took a long time about it and was clearly looking for the entry stamp corresponding to that exit.  I had gotten it in Portugal so it was barely readable.  As a matter of fact I had been in the Schengen zone for only 86 days, so I was not in breach of the 90 in 180 rule, and because I knew precisely where the Portuguese stamp was, I could have found it and showed it to him.  But it was not my place to volunteer that information.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

agentsteel53

Quote from: J N Winkler on August 12, 2011, 09:00:20 PM
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!

(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!)
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

Alps

I'm sure you in no way crossed that river to be in Russia at all, whatsoever.

J N Winkler

Quote from: mtantillo on August 12, 2011, 08:27:53 PMWonder what you did with the landing card if you left Spain via another Schengen country?  No border agent to surrender the card to.  Or enter Spain through another Schengen country and depart directly from Spain...no card to surrender.

I have wondered about those cases, as well as cases where the card is lost before departure.  I think the rationale is that returning the card is basically optional (i.e., for some itineraries it will not be practical to return the card to the Spanish authorities) but if it is in fact returned, that allows the Spanish to check you off as someone who has left Spain.  If you leave Spain and then get into some sort of immigration-related trouble in another Schengen country, then the responsibility of resolving that rests with the other country, not Spain, since you are no longer on Spanish soil.

In general, the Spanish are more concerned about people who come into Spain to go further north than they are about people who come from the north to go to Spain.  The Spanish landing card (when it was still in use) had instructions in Arabic as well as Spanish and English, and the Spanish possessions in North Africa (Ceuta and Melilla) have land borders which are every bit as fortified as the US-Mexico border.  The Spanish have a system for detaining illegal crossers which gives them free rein of Ceuta or Melilla (depending on which of the two they crossed into) but prevents them from crossing to the Spanish mainland.  I suspect that ferry operators are required to check documents for all their passengers to make sure none of them are detainees seeking to escape either Ceuta or Melilla.

QuoteThe common travel area is slightly different from Schengen.  With Schengen, when you are admitted to one, you are admitted to all, and one Schengen visa is good for all Schengen countries if you visit multiple countries on a trip.

As a tourist travelling on a passport issued by a country whose nationals do not require Schengen visas--yes, that is true.  But if you are from a country whose nationals do require a Schengen visa, you must apply for your visa from the country in which you will be staying for the most important part of your trip.  This could be the country where you plan to stay the longest, or the country where a conference is being held that is the principal motivation for the trip.  You are not allowed to choose any Schengen country at random and get your visa from that country, nor (as international students did when it was still possible to game the system in this way) can you apply for a visa from a known "easy" country purposely to use it to travel to a "hard" country.  (A common dodge, which no longer works, was to go to the Swedish embassy to get a Schengen visa for travel to France or Italy.)  This requirement is enforced both during the applications process for a Schengen visa and on first entry to the Schengen zone.

QuoteIreland and the UK still require separate visas.  Being admitted to one absolutely does not entitle you to travel to the other and in fact if you mention to an immigration officer that you intend to travel to the other, expect to be denied entry to the first country.  They do look out for one another.

Strictly speaking this applies to visa nationals (i.e., not Americans on touristic visits).  Admission to the UK for nationals who do not require visas is known as "leave to enter" and is ordinarily granted for six months--if it is granted for a shorter length of time, a second stamp goes into your passport with the deadline for departure, which can raise questions if you later re-enter the UK.

As for "looking out for each other," the level of trust fluctuates in time.  Recently there was a controversial proposal to start checking passports on the ferries between NI and Scotland (i.e., on a water crossing between two UK points), to maintain a completely open land border between NI and the Republic while preventing terrorists the Irish might naively admit from travelling onward to the UK.  Vehicles on these ferries are already subject to cursory checks for weapons.

QuoteAnother key difference is length of stay.  The UK generally stamps US passports for 6 months.  Ireland only grants you enough days to cover your planned itinerary, generally one extra day in case of delayed departure...up to a max of 3 months.  This is written onto the huge (full page) entry stamp.  If you enter Ireland and go to the UK, you have to be out of the UK by the time written onto your Irish entry stamp (they will take those days into account too, as part of your itinerary), whereas if you enter the UK and travel on to Ireland, you are only permitted in Ireland for 3 months from the date you entered the UK (that is, if your passport isn't checked on entry to Ireland from the UK).

I have never entered Ireland through a port of entry, just by car from Northern Ireland, so this information about Irish immigration procedures is new to me.

QuoteCrossing from Ireland to the UK, as I understand it, passports are never checked.  Crossing from the UK to Ireland, your passport will be checked when entering via plane, maybe checked when entering by ferry, and then sporadically checked when entering by road or rail from Northern Ireland.

I have never heard of them checking passports at the NI border.  What they generally do (on the highways--I have never travelled between NI and the Republic by rail) is to operate temporary police or army checkpoints on either side of the border.  These are casual checks for weapons only, not identity documents.  They don't even ask questions like at Border Patrol checkpoints in the US--they just look through your windows and then wave you on.

I have never tried travelling between the UK and the Irish Republic by sea or plane.  My experience has been that most UK airports have separate processing areas for Irish arrivals.  I think this allows them to bypass passport control, though I have not checked this out for myself.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

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.  

USA and Canada scan passports in the primary inspection lanes now.  

I had to get a "mail-away" visa for China this year.  It was relatively painless, just needed a copy of my itinerary.  China immigration.....they're STRICT.  They scanned passport and visa, and they snapped a photo.  They took a very thorough look at the passport and all the stamps in it.  Looked like they might have been doing facial recognition on the passport pic, visa pic, and the pic of me at the counter.  Oh, and before you get to immigration, there's a body temperature scanner....holdover from the SARS days!



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.