Gordie Howe Bridge (US-Canada)

[Rothman]

When the bridge opens on time, I hope a taco truck is the first vehicle to cross.

Taco, doner, poutine...

[thenetwork]

A city of Windsor councilor

Paywall kept me from reading the entire story.

Sorry, I can't always tell from the website what is or is not free to non-subscribers.

The Morouns are playing with fire. What's to keep the Canadians from declaring the Ambassador Bridge a hazard and shutting down its access to Canada?

A councilor from the city of Windsor is already promoting the tunnel over the bridge.

That doesn't help any of the semi/freight hauler traffic at all.  If they were to shut down  the Ambassador Bridge in protest, then the only crossing in SW Ontario for the big rigs would be at Port Huron.

[Max Rockatansky]

When the bridge opens on time, I hope a taco truck is the first vehicle to cross.

Taco, doner, poutine...

I would find it hard to believe Midwest or Canadian sourced tacos would be all that fantastic. 

[Rothman]

When the bridge opens on time, I hope a taco truck is the first vehicle to cross.

Taco, doner, poutine...

I would find it hard to believe Midwest or Canadian sourced tacos would be all that fantastic. 

*shrug*

It's all about theater, not quality.

The show must go on.

[NE2]

Chicken tacos only.

[Max Rockatansky]

See, that's the red flag.  If it isn't pollo tacos you know something is up.

[Scott5114]

The Morouns are playing with fire. What's to keep the Canadians from declaring the Ambassador Bridge a hazard and shutting down its access to Canada?

Something like this happened on the Oklahoma-Texas border once. It didn't end well for the owners of the toll bridge (not least because the governor of Oklahoma showed up in person, armed with a revolver).

[Beltway]

The Gordie Howe International Bridge is being delivered under a formal, legally binding international agreement between the United States and Canada that authorizes construction, right‑of‑way acquisition, and long‑term operation on both sides of the border. Michigan's legislature approved the compact and granted the necessary land, permitting authority, and highway connections, even though it declined to fund the project.

Because Michigan would not appropriate money, Canada financed the entire bridge, the U.S. Port of Entry buildings, and the I‑75 interchange through the Windsor‑Detroit Bridge Authority, a Canadian Crown corporation. Financing, however, is separate from ownership: Michigan still owns its right‑of‑way, the freeway approaches, and the U.S. customs‑plaza land, and the United States retains full control over border operations through CBP. Canada controls the construction timeline because it paid for the project, while the United States controls entry into the country, just as at every other crossing.

A president does have technical authority to suspend operations at a port of entry under existing immigration and customs statutes, but that authority is used only for narrow, temporary operational reasons. It has never been used to block the opening of a fully constructed, fully authorized international crossing. Once the infrastructure is built and the bilateral compact is in force, opening the port is an administrative process handled by CBP, not a discretionary political decision. In practice, presidents do not intervene in the opening of ports of entry because doing so would disrupt trade, violate established agreements, and trigger significant legal and diplomatic consequences.

Why leave the other Detroit River crossings open and not allow the new bridge to open?

[SEWIGuy]

The Gordie Howe International Bridge is being delivered under a formal, legally binding international agreement between the United States and Canada that authorizes construction, right‑of‑way acquisition, and long‑term operation on both sides of the border. Michigan's legislature approved the compact and granted the necessary land, permitting authority, and highway connections, even though it declined to fund the project.

Because Michigan would not appropriate money, Canada financed the entire bridge, the U.S. Port of Entry buildings, and the I‑75 interchange through the Windsor‑Detroit Bridge Authority, a Canadian Crown corporation. Financing, however, is separate from ownership: Michigan still owns its right‑of‑way, the freeway approaches, and the U.S. customs‑plaza land, and the United States retains full control over border operations through CBP. Canada controls the construction timeline because it paid for the project, while the United States controls entry into the country, just as at every other crossing.

A president does have technical authority to suspend operations at a port of entry under existing immigration and customs statutes, but that authority is used only for narrow, temporary operational reasons. It has never been used to block the opening of a fully constructed, fully authorized international crossing. Once the infrastructure is built and the bilateral compact is in force, opening the port is an administrative process handled by CBP, not a discretionary political decision. In practice, presidents do not intervene in the opening of ports of entry because doing so would disrupt trade, violate established agreements, and trigger significant legal and diplomatic consequences.

This is cute and all, but we all realize that the President can simply shut down the bridge if he would like. Even in the short term.

[vdeane]

I wonder what would happen if Michigan and Canada collectively decided to disobey Trump and opened the Canada-bound direction regardless of what he says.  After all, Trump has no ability to regulate traffic entering Canada - only the US.  What's he gonna do?  Deploy the National Guard to put the construction barricades back?

It wouldn't be the only example of a one-way border crossing.

[NE2]

🤖

[MikeTheActuary]

After all, Trump has no ability to regulate traffic entering Canada - only the US.

The administration has the authority to do so and recently announced that regs had been updated to support plans to add biometric exit gates at all ports of entry.

[GaryV]

When the bridge opens on time, I hope a taco truck is the first vehicle to cross.

Saw a new acronym today: TACO - Trump Always Chickens Out

[1995hoo]

When the bridge opens on time, I hope a taco truck is the first vehicle to cross.

Saw a new acronym today: TACO - Trump Always Chickens Out

Uhhh, yeah. No kidding.

Part of why I said that is that last June, the Democrats hired a taco truck to park outside the headquarters of the Republican National Committee. It was referring to the acronym of which you speak.

[vdeane]

After all, Trump has no ability to regulate traffic entering Canada - only the US.

The administration has the authority to do so and recently announced that regs had been updated to support plans to add biometric exit gates at all ports of entry.

Yuck.  I was hoping that they would just end up doing information sharing with Canada like they did for logging entry/exit on that.  Controlling people exiting is a hallmark of tyrannical dictatorships.  What is this, East Germany?

In any case, I'm still curious how he could possibly enforce his edict in the scenario I mentioned, given that most (all?) crossings on the Canadian border aren't set up for exit controls.  I'm not even sure how they're supposed to add them.  It doesn't appear that there's room.  And the times they try to do something like this on I-5, it results in hours-long delays (kinda like entering the US from Mexico).  I just don't see how it's supposed to work on the land border.  I think most people on r/USCanadaBorder are convinced that it's mainly for going to affect air travel.

[oscar]

After all, Trump has no ability to regulate traffic entering Canada - only the US.

The administration has the authority to do so and recently announced that regs had been updated to support plans to add biometric exit gates at all ports of entry.

Yuck.  I was hoping that they would just end up doing information sharing with Canada like they did for logging entry/exit on that.  Controlling people exiting is a hallmark of tyrannical dictatorships.  What is this, East Germany?

We already regulate some noncitizens exiting the U.S., by placing time limits on their visas. The biometric exit gates might help identify the people who have not overstayed their visas, and narrow down the list of possible overstays who might need followup.

[MikeTheActuary]

Controlling people exiting is a hallmark of tyrannical dictatorships. 

I thought that it was more common for countries (or groups of countries with a common border control regime) to require folks to be "stamped out" when departing the country than not.

The problem, of course, arises when people aren't permitted to leave the country for questionable reasons.

Record-keeping on surface exits doesn't necessarily bother me, aside from cost/efficiency concerns, or my futile general dislike of governments and businesses accumulating more identifying data on individuals.

[vdeane]

After all, Trump has no ability to regulate traffic entering Canada - only the US.

The administration has the authority to do so and recently announced that regs had been updated to support plans to add biometric exit gates at all ports of entry.

Yuck.  I was hoping that they would just end up doing information sharing with Canada like they did for logging entry/exit on that.  Controlling people exiting is a hallmark of tyrannical dictatorships.  What is this, East Germany?

We already regulate some noncitizens exiting the U.S., by placing time limits on their visas. The biometric exit gates might help identify the people who have not overstayed their visas, and narrow down the list of possible overstays who might need followup.

There's a difference between limiting how long someone is approved to be in the country and building the infrastructure that could be used to prevent people from leaving, no matter the supposed intent.  And if the intent is to know who's leaving, don't we already have that on the US/Canada border?  The US and Canada already have information sharing agreements where entry to Canada also shows exiting from the US and vice-versa.

I thought that it was more common for countries (or groups of countries with a common border control regime) to require folks to be "stamped out" when departing the country than not.

The problem, of course, arises when people aren't permitted to leave the country for questionable reasons.

I have zero faith that the current administration won't get around to doing that, especially given recent national security policies that basically deem everyone who isn't politically aligned with the powers that be to be a potential terrorist.

I've never been outside the US and Canada, so I'm not aware of how exit controls work in practice outside of the infamous places like East Germany and North Korea, but such is unprecedented for land borders on this continent and strikes me as unnecessary given existing information-sharing agreements, which tells me that any interest is for more nefarious ends.

[Beltway]

This is cute and all, but we all realize that the President can simply shut down the bridge if he would like. Even in the short term.

The president does have limited authority to temporarily suspend operations at a port of entry, but that's not the same as shutting down a bridge. The Gordie Howe Bridge exists under a binding U.S.–Canada agreement that authorizes construction and long‑term operation. Once the port of entry is built and staffed, opening it is an administrative process, not a discretionary political decision. No president has ever blocked the opening of a completed international crossing, and doing so would conflict with federal law and a bilateral compact.

[SEWIGuy]

This is cute and all, but we all realize that the President can simply shut down the bridge if he would like. Even in the short term.

The president does have limited authority to temporarily suspend operations at a port of entry, but that's not the same as shutting down a bridge. The Gordie Howe Bridge exists under a binding U.S.–Canada agreement that authorizes construction and long‑term operation. Once the port of entry is built and staffed, opening it is an administrative process, not a discretionary political decision. No president has ever blocked the opening of a completed international crossing, and doing so would conflict with federal law and a bilateral compact.

It's cute that you think he cares about things like following federal law and bilateral compacts.

Sure a court would likely rule against him, but I am sure he could shut down the bridge for a significant time if he wanted to.

[1995hoo]

....

I've never been outside the US and Canada, so I'm not aware of how exit controls work in practice outside of the infamous places like East Germany and North Korea, but such is unprecedented for land borders on this continent and strikes me as unnecessary given existing information-sharing agreements, which tells me that any interest is for more nefarious ends.

The only place I've encountered exit controls was Russia. They stamp your passport on both entry and exit. The main issue is whether you overstayed your visa by any amount of time. If you do, you won't be permitted to leave until you get your visa extended and you'll be fined as part of extending it. One of the main ways people get caught out by that is if they take the overnight train from Russia to Helsinki. It crosses the border after midnight, which means that people who mess up and get a visa that expires based on when they will board the train have screwed up and get pulled off the train at the border.

(I didn't have to deal with any of that, but then I was on a cruise ship and the Russians have a visa waiver program provided you stay on the cruise line's organized shore excursions. I still have multiple Russian stamps in my old passport because you still get the exit stamp. My mother and father went on an organized tour that went to Russia and Belarus and the tour company instructed them very carefully to apply for multiple-entry and -exit Russian visas because the visit to Minsk came mid-itinerary.)

[Beltway]

This is cute and all, but we all realize that the President can simply shut down the bridge if he would like. Even in the short term.

The president does have limited authority to temporarily suspend operations at a port of entry, but that's not the same as shutting down a bridge. The Gordie Howe Bridge exists under a binding U.S.–Canada agreement that authorizes construction and long‑term operation. Once the port of entry is built and staffed, opening it is an administrative process, not a discretionary political decision. No president has ever blocked the opening of a completed international crossing, and doing so would conflict with federal law and a bilateral compact.

It's cute that you think he cares about things like following federal law and bilateral compacts.
Sure a court would likely rule against him, but I am sure he could shut down the bridge for a significant time if he wanted to.

The issue isn't whether a president "cares" about the law -- it's what legal authority actually exists. A president can temporarily suspend operations at a port of entry under immigration and customs statutes, but that authority doesn't extend to shutting down or blocking the opening of an international bridge that exists under a binding U.S.-Canada agreement.

Even if a president attempted a suspension, it would affect CBP processing, not the physical crossing itself, and it would be immediately challenged in court. The bridge would still exist, Canada's side would still be open, and the bilateral compact would still be in force.

In practice, no president has ever tried to block the opening of a completed, fully authorized international crossing, because doing so would trigger legal, diplomatic, and trade consequences that go far beyond a short‑term operational pause.

[MikeTheActuary]

The issue isn't whether a president "cares" about the law -- it's what legal authority actually exists.

...when a (super?)majority of both houses of Congress or a majority of SCOTUS justices choose to impose a check on Presidential authority.

If neither of those conditions exists, legal authority doesn't actually matter.

[Scott5114]

This is cute and all, but we all realize that the President can simply shut down the bridge if he would like. Even in the short term.

The president does have limited authority to temporarily suspend operations at a port of entry, but that's not the same as shutting down a bridge. The Gordie Howe Bridge exists under a binding U.S.–Canada agreement that authorizes construction and long‑term operation. Once the port of entry is built and staffed, opening it is an administrative process, not a discretionary political decision. No president has ever blocked the opening of a completed international crossing, and doing so would conflict with federal law and a bilateral compact.

It's cute that you think he cares about things like following federal law and bilateral compacts.
Sure a court would likely rule against him, but I am sure he could shut down the bridge for a significant time if he wanted to.

The issue isn't whether a president "cares" about the law -- it's what legal authority actually exists. A president can temporarily suspend operations at a port of entry under immigration and customs statutes, but that authority doesn't extend to shutting down or blocking the opening of an international bridge that exists under a binding U.S.-Canada agreement.

Even if a president attempted a suspension, it would affect CBP processing, not the physical crossing itself, and it would be immediately challenged in court. The bridge would still exist, Canada's side would still be open, and the bilateral compact would still be in force.

In practice, no president has ever tried to block the opening of a completed, fully authorized international crossing, because doing so would trigger legal, diplomatic, and trade consequences that go far beyond a short‑term operational pause.

AI;dr

[Mapmikey]

....

I've never been outside the US and Canada, so I'm not aware of how exit controls work in practice outside of the infamous places like East Germany and North Korea, but such is unprecedented for land borders on this continent and strikes me as unnecessary given existing information-sharing agreements, which tells me that any interest is for more nefarious ends.

The only place I've encountered exit controls was Russia. They stamp your passport on both entry and exit. The main issue is whether you overstayed your visa by any amount of time. If you do, you won't be permitted to leave until you get your visa extended and you'll be fined as part of extending it. One of the main ways people get caught out by that is if they take the overnight train from Russia to Helsinki. It crosses the border after midnight, which means that people who mess up and get a visa that expires based on when they will board the train have screwed up and get pulled off the train at the border.

(I didn't have to deal with any of that, but then I was on a cruise ship and the Russians have a visa waiver program provided you stay on the cruise line's organized shore excursions. I still have multiple Russian stamps in my old passport because you still get the exit stamp. My mother and father went on an organized tour that went to Russia and Belarus and the tour company instructed them very carefully to apply for multiple-entry and -exit Russian visas because the visit to Minsk came mid-itinerary.)

Cuba also clears tourists upon exit based on my cruise there in 2017.