Entering/Leaving the US (and other countries)

[CoreySamson]

So if I'm reading the overall sentiments in this thread correctly, everyone except @kphoger would just be happier with completely open borders?

[Max Rockatansky]

So if I'm reading the overall sentiments in this thread correctly, everyone except @kphoger would just be happier with completely open borders?

Yes

[CoreySamson]

So if I'm reading the overall sentiments in this thread correctly, everyone except @kphoger would just be happier with completely open borders?

Yes

I guess the better question for me to ask would be why, if so?

[LilianaUwU]

So if I'm reading the overall sentiments in this thread correctly, everyone except @kphoger would just be happier with completely open borders?

Yes

I guess the better question for me to ask would be why, if so?

Because borders were made up to oppress people for arbitrary reasons.

[Max Rockatansky]

So if I'm reading the overall sentiments in this thread correctly, everyone except @kphoger would just be happier with completely open borders?

Yes

I guess the better question for me to ask would be why, if so?

For me as a Federal employee it sure would make foreign travel far less of a PIA.  I don't particularly care to report my travels to work in general.  However it is mandatory for me when I do so when I travel outside the U.S.  That and I really don't like to be told where I can't go via State Department restrictions.

Also, when I was younger I recall a time when at least Canada was pretty much like going to another state.  Crossing even into Canada nowadays is way more frustrating than it was in the past. 

[CoreySamson]

So if I'm reading the overall sentiments in this thread correctly, everyone except @kphoger would just be happier with completely open borders?

Yes

I guess the better question for me to ask would be why, if so?

Because borders were made up to oppress people for arbitrary reasons.

Just curious, but how do you think borders are oppressing people? And how did those who made them up intend for them to oppress people?

[LilianaUwU]

So if I'm reading the overall sentiments in this thread correctly, everyone except @kphoger would just be happier with completely open borders?

Yes

I guess the better question for me to ask would be why, if so?

Because borders were made up to oppress people for arbitrary reasons.

Just curious, but how do you think borders are oppressing people? And how did those who made them up intend for them to oppress people?

Have you seen what ICE is doing to innocent people these days? Pretty blatant example of that.

[Scott5114]

I can't think of how to explain a purely roadgeeking trip to customs in a way that wouldn't have them find me suspicious just for how unusual things like clinching highways are.

"Sightseeing."

Just curious, but how do you think borders are oppressing people?

You really think "We should stop people from accessing arbitrary pieces of geography for arbitrary reasons" is apt to be something that finds support here in the visiting-geography fandom?

[Molandfreak]

So if I'm reading the overall sentiments in this thread correctly, everyone except @kphoger would just be happier with completely open borders?

That's a strawman argument based on the arguments detailed before this post. All I was talking about was leaving enforcement of immigration and importation laws solely to officials in the receiving country, and all of a sudden it's like I'm advocating for a North American Schengen zone? When you don't have an actual argument, go straight for the absurd I guess?

[Max Rockatansky]

I can't think of how to explain a purely roadgeeking trip to customs in a way that wouldn't have them find me suspicious just for how unusual things like clinching highways are.

"Sightseeing."

Heh, I said pretty much exactly that in January 2013 on trip to Montreal.  CBSA pulled me into a room after my plane landed and grilled me about my trip for about a half hour.  Apparently it seemed strange that a 30 year old male American would take a sightseeing trip to Montreal alone during the winter.

[LilianaUwU]

So if I'm reading the overall sentiments in this thread correctly, everyone except @kphoger would just be happier with completely open borders?

That's a strawman argument based on the arguments detailed before this post. All I was talking about was leaving enforcement of immigration and importation laws solely to officials in the receiving country, and all of a sudden it's like I'm advocating for a North American Schengen zone? When you don't have an actual argument, go straight for the absurd I guess?

Wait, a North American Schengen zone would be absurd?

[Molandfreak]

So if I'm reading the overall sentiments in this thread correctly, everyone except @kphoger would just be happier with completely open borders?

That's a strawman argument based on the arguments detailed before this post. All I was talking about was leaving enforcement of immigration and importation laws solely to officials in the receiving country, and all of a sudden it's like I'm advocating for a North American Schengen zone? When you don't have an actual argument, go straight for the absurd I guess?

Wait, a North American Schengen zone would be absurd?

Speaking with realistic expectations under the current paradigm.

[CoreySamson]

So if I'm reading the overall sentiments in this thread correctly, everyone except @kphoger would just be happier with completely open borders?

That's a strawman argument based on the arguments detailed before this post. All I was talking about was leaving enforcement of immigration and importation laws solely to officials in the receiving country, and all of a sudden it's like I'm advocating for a North American Schengen zone? When you don't have an actual argument, go straight for the absurd I guess?

I was being a little facetious, but didn't make that clear enough. That's on me. Seems I read the overall sentiments incorrectly then. Probably not helping matters is that I didn't see that this conversation was snipped from another thread, so I missed the prior context.

[LilianaUwU]

Probably not helping matters is that I didn't see that this conversation was snipped from another thread, so I missed the prior context.

Creative snipping is a bitch sometimes.

[LilianaUwU]

So if I'm reading the overall sentiments in this thread correctly, everyone except @kphoger would just be happier with completely open borders?

That's a strawman argument based on the arguments detailed before this post. All I was talking about was leaving enforcement of immigration and importation laws solely to officials in the receiving country, and all of a sudden it's like I'm advocating for a North American Schengen zone? When you don't have an actual argument, go straight for the absurd I guess?

Wait, a North American Schengen zone would be absurd?

Speaking with realistic expectations under the current paradigm.

What sucks is that we were almost there before 9/11.

[Molandfreak]

So if I'm reading the overall sentiments in this thread correctly, everyone except @kphoger would just be happier with completely open borders?

That's a strawman argument based on the arguments detailed before this post. All I was talking about was leaving enforcement of immigration and importation laws solely to officials in the receiving country, and all of a sudden it's like I'm advocating for a North American Schengen zone? When you don't have an actual argument, go straight for the absurd I guess?

Wait, a North American Schengen zone would be absurd?

Speaking with realistic expectations under the current paradigm.

What sucks is that we were almost there before 9/11.

Honestly, I doubt the EEA would have accomplished it if they had dragged their heels on it for another 6 years.

[Bruce]

I can't think of how to explain a purely roadgeeking trip to customs in a way that wouldn't have them find me suspicious just for how unusual things like clinching highways are.

"Sightseeing."

This is my typical answer and it has been good enough for most of my Canada adventuring. My first real solo crossing (at a rather busy Vancouver-area station) threw red flags and got my vehicle searched, but since then I've mostly been fine (even when leading a group of friends).

[kalvado]

To be fair, trying to explain anything that goes on in this hobby to a border agent is likely to induce bewilderment.

Simplifying things to "meeting old friends" or "sightseeing the area" may make things easier, while still being true

[kphoger]

I'm not really on board with the idea that you have to ask for permission from the government to leave.

Unless I'm missing something here, you don't have to ask permission from CBP to leave.  They're just checking to make sure you're actually allowed to first, and that you aren't smuggling stuff with you.

Their prerogatives are to...

1.  Check to make sure you aren't exporting anything that's illegal to export,
2.  Check to make sure you aren't engaging in human trafficking or some such,
3.  Check to make sure you aren't a wanted fugitive,
4.  Check to see if you are a non-citizen and then record your exit if so.

1. The idea that something would be illegal to export (barring specific situations related to classified materials or wartime rationing or something) seems strange.  I would think more along the lines of illegal to import into the bordering country, which would be CBSA's problem, not CBP's.
2. Doesn't CBSA do that when you enter Canada?
3. Doesn't CBSA do this too when entering Canada?  But this runs into the additional wrinkle that you have to trust the government to not abuse that power.  How many people trust both parties enough on that subject?  I know that I don't.
4. Our information sharing between CBP and CBSA already handles this.

1.  If you're exporting more than $10k, then you have to declare it;  you don't understand why the government would want to be able to control or at least know how much cash leaves the country?  Exporting guns requires quite a bit of paperwork;  you don't understand why the government might want to have a record of what guns have left the country?  Historical and archaeological artifacts are generally illegal to export;  you don't understand why the government would want to be able to keep those within its borders?  Endangered and protected species are generally illegal to export;  you don't understand why the government would want to be able to keep them from being taken out of the country?  Etc, etc, etc.

2. through 4.  But that requires our agencies to just trust that their agencies are doing the job well enough to our satisfaction.  Again, my experience is primarily with the southern border.  There have been at least one time when I was stopped by literally nobody.  No CBP agents on the US side, no military checkpoint on the Mexican side, green light at the gate, no border agent nearby, no highway patrol checkpoint farther south, nothing.  If I hadn't voluntarily parked at the border office and done my paperwork, I could have gone the whole 300–350 miles into Mexico completely undocumented.  Surely you understand why the US government might not consider that sort of immigration control to be sufficient—and why they might want to be able to do their own identity exit checks.  If Canada decided for whatever reason to de-fund the CBSA or stop sharing information with the US government or whatever, perhaps due to political reasons, then surely you understand why the US government would want the mechanisms already available to pick up the slack.

I wouldn't be OK with that if I didn't trust the US government enough to believe their stated reason for doing something always matched up with their actual reason for doing something.

Fair enough.  In my experience, border agents have nothing on their minds but safety and security.  Of all the types of police officers I can think of, border agents are way up toward the top of my list for actually being concerned with what they're supposed to be concerned with.  YMMV.

So if I'm reading the overall sentiments in this thread correctly, everyone except @kphoger would just be happier with completely open borders?

I'm actually pretty liberal when it comes to immigration, but I also think that import/export restrictions and identity checks make sense.  I don't even have much of a problem with illegal immigration, but that doesn't mean I don't understand why the government would want to control it.  So, while "completely open borders" might be further than I'd go, my own position is actually quite a bit to the left of the current typical US conservative position.

Because borders were made up to oppress people for arbitrary reasons.

At its most basic, a border exists whether people intend for it to or not.  Any dividing line between people groups is a border, whether it's controlled by any sort of checkpoint or not.  These dividing lines are often but not always physical borders as well:  rivers, mountains, deserts, etc.  But for now let's define a border as a controlled border.

Generally speaking, historically, controlled borders exist in order to collect taxes and other import/export duties.  As civilizations developed, borders also came to consolidate power among each particular group within its boundaries, which I suppose has contributed to some people groups being less powerful and successful than others—and therewith the possibility of oppression.  But the oppression is not why they were drawn up to begin with.

Just curious, but how do you think borders are oppressing people? And how did those who made them up intend for them to oppress people?

Have you seen what ICE is doing to innocent people these days? Pretty blatant example of that.

You may have answered his first question, but the abuse of something doesn't mean that the abuse was the thing's intended purpose.

You really think "We should stop people from accessing arbitrary pieces of geography for arbitrary reasons" is apt to be something that finds support here in the visiting-geography fandom?

To me, a border is primarily the hurdle that I have to cross in order to get to where I'm going.  I try to think of it as a line rather than a barrier.  I try to think of the Texas–Coahuila line as being like the Oklahoma–Texas line but with a bunch of paperwork.  And I'm fortunate to not have had to deal with visas at all.

It also irritates me that, in order to qualify for Mexican residency, I'd have to be making as much money as I do now just for temporary residency, and an additional two-thirds more on top of that for permanent residency—so, basically, I'd have to earn upwards of ten times the Mexican minimum wage.  I wish that I could just hand them my passport and pay for a visa, but I understand why they'd want to impose a minimum income requirement—but, good grief, couldn't that requirement bear some sort of resemblance to what native-born Mexicans earn themselves?

[vdeane]

1.  If you're exporting more than $10k, then you have to declare it;  you don't understand why the government would want to be able to control or at least know how much cash leaves the country?  Exporting guns requires quite a bit of paperwork;  you don't understand why the government might want to have a record of what guns have left the country?  Historical and archaeological artifacts are generally illegal to export;  you don't understand why the government would want to be able to keep those within its borders?  Endangered and protected species are generally illegal to export;  you don't understand why the government would want to be able to keep them from being taken out of the country?  Etc, etc, etc.

Fair enough on currency control, although given the status of the US dollar and a world reserve currency and use for much of the world-wide oil trade (as well as some foreign countries even using it as their currency or pegging their's 1:1 to the dollar), dollars are everywhere in the world, so I expect it's actually asked so that the border can be used as a law enforcement dragnet to detecting other crimes.  The other examples strike me as similar (although the gun one would probably also require aligning our laws more closely with the rest of the world's in a way that would be too political for discussing in this thread).  It's been my opinion that the border should be for screening people/goods that aren't allowed into the country, and that other law enforcement operations should be handled by other law enforcement in the interior subject to constitutional rights and civil rights law.  If they had intelligence that some criminals were going to illegally export something, that certainly would warrant temporary exit checks in the area of interest.

But that requires our agencies to just trust that their agencies are doing the job well enough to our satisfaction.  Again, my experience is primarily with the southern border.  There have been at least one time when I was stopped by literally nobody.  No CBP agents on the US side, no military checkpoint on the Mexican side, green light at the gate, no border agent nearby, no highway patrol checkpoint farther south, nothing.  If I hadn't voluntarily parked at the border office and done my paperwork, I could have gone the whole 300–350 miles into Mexico completely undocumented.  Surely you understand why the US government might not consider that sort of immigration control to be sufficient—and why they might want to be able to do their own identity exit checks.  If Canada decided for whatever reason to de-fund the CBSA or stop sharing information with the US government or whatever, perhaps due to political reasons, then surely you understand why the US government would want the mechanisms already available to pick up the slack.

Quite frankly, I don't understand why Mexico considers that to be an acceptable level of border control, especially given their cartel problems.  As such, I do consider the Canadian and Mexican borders different, and I can understand why exit checks are necessary on the Mexican border, even if I have reservations on the concept.  But that's quite different on the Canadian border, especially since I trust the Canadian government a lot more than I trust the US federal government (well, Carney's not perfect, and there's at least on party over there that I distrust, but for much the same reasons as I distrust one of the parties here, but still).  And given their political situation, I think defunding CBSA and moving to a border system that's more similar to Mexico's is the last thing on their mind (not to mention that Mexico's border/interior distinction would never work in a country where the vast majority of the population lives within 100 miles of the border and things like military checkpoints are very rare).  If we had a scenario where Canada decided to discontinue information sharing, I'm guessing the situation in the US would be at the point where a good chunk of the population would legally be able to claim asylum (sadly a more credible fear that I'd like), and that exit checks would hinder that.

To be fair, trying to explain anything that goes on in this hobby to a border agent is likely to induce bewilderment.

Simplifying things to "meeting old friends" or "sightseeing the area" may make things easier, while still being true

In the past, I've found such to not have a ton of success in avoiding the roadmeet topic because it almost invariably leads to tons of follow-up questions.  In fact, I can only think of three trips where I didn't get grilled on something by one side or the other:
-2012 Ottawa Meet Take Deux - this was the third trip that year I had taken across the border, the second to Ottawa, and I think the trip took pretty much every waking hour of the day, so I wasn't out of line with typical travel
-2023 Niagara Falls (day after the Buffalo meet) - this was about as stereotypical tourist as I've ever been and the hour of roadgeeking I did between the Canadian and US sides would have been lost in the noise
-2024 Montréal - spending five days in May up there when living in upstate NY?  Also very stereotypical tourist.  The only thing that wouldn't have been at first glance was crossing into Canada on US 11 (it was a Thursday, so I doubt the I-87/A-15 crossing was busy), and I specifically stopped at the overlook for Fort Blunder on the way up to have an excuse if they asked (they didn't, which actually surprised me)

Other trips have had much more grilling, and not the fun cookout kind:
-2012 Montréal Mini Meet - Both sides grilled me and wanted a ton of detail, and this is the one time I was ever sent to secondary (by CBSA), where I had to explain what roadmeets are, what the forum is, and what roadgeeking is.  This trip has pretty much become my model of what not to do.
-2014 Québec City Meet - Got grilled returning to the US about why my only souvenir was a map I picked up at the meet (not even of Québec) and why I had a job not related to my computer science degree (the latter might have been to keep us talking while he flipped through every page of my passport book, which is why I favor my EDL when crossing the border, though it's not a silver bullet; it may stop them from asking questions to fill time, but it won't stop them from asking questions that they genuinely feel the need to ask)
-2024 Michigan City Meet - Got grilled returning to the US about what roadmeets and roadgeeking are, why I was crossing into Michigan when I had never been to the state before, and for a detailed itinerary of the rest of my trip between the border crossing and home.  Apparently using Canada as a cut-through between upstate NY and Michigan is not normal anymore, or at least it depends on who you are and I live too far east to be considered such.  She also felt the need to go through all my luggage, thankfully not disturbing anything or taking everything apart, though I did wish that I had remembered to unlock the driver's trunk control so that I wouldn't have had to shut the car off and remove the key from the ignition so the fob would work.  Although from what I heard at the meet afterwards, the Port Huron crossing might just be like that, so who knows.

It's amazing how many people have success with these strategies when I never seem to.  I don't know if it's bad luck, or if it's a downside of my anxious demeanor making me look like I have something I have something to hide pretty much 100% of the time, with the border crossing anxiety only making that much, much worse.  I've read too many horror stories of people doing normal travel only to spend hours or more at the crossing, chained to a table, strip searched, having their phones/laptops confiscated, etc., and that was before the current administration.  Plus I tend to naturally get anxious whenever I slip behind schedule (especially as my roadtrips are fairly tightly scheduled), so a long line is not going to have me emotionally neutral.  In addition to the inconvenience of the uncertainty of how long the border crossing experience will take (and whether it will be an easy one or not), there's also the fact that I have a ton of pride and despise being treated as a criminal - I see it as beneath me.

So if I'm reading the overall sentiments in this thread correctly, everyone except @kphoger would just be happier with completely open borders?

That's a strawman argument based on the arguments detailed before this post. All I was talking about was leaving enforcement of immigration and importation laws solely to officials in the receiving country, and all of a sudden it's like I'm advocating for a North American Schengen zone? When you don't have an actual argument, go straight for the absurd I guess?

Wait, a North American Schengen zone would be absurd?

Speaking with realistic expectations under the current paradigm.

What sucks is that we were almost there before 9/11.

Honestly, I doubt the EEA would have accomplished it if they had dragged their heels on it for another 6 years.

And if just a few years later wouldn't have sunk it, the large number of asylum seekers from the past 10-15 years certainly would have.  As I understand it, many countries have imposed "temporary" "emergency" border controls within the zone on an essentially permeant basis.  Even freedom of movement with border controls would have probably been sunk if it was still up for negotiation at the time Brexit happened (and in such a hypothetical timeline, the UK would have also likely not left the EU).

So if I'm reading the overall sentiments in this thread correctly, everyone except @kphoger would just be happier with completely open borders?

That's a strawman argument based on the arguments detailed before this post. All I was talking about was leaving enforcement of immigration and importation laws solely to officials in the receiving country, and all of a sudden it's like I'm advocating for a North American Schengen zone? When you don't have an actual argument, go straight for the absurd I guess?

Wait, a North American Schengen zone would be absurd?

Speaking with realistic expectations under the current paradigm.

What sucks is that we were almost there before 9/11.

Yeah, it's amazing how much 9/11 changed things.  No 9/11, and not only would we likely have a completely open border between the US and Canada, but we'd also likely have internet privacy regulations that would make our current surveillance economy impossible.

[Max Rockatansky]

To be fair, trying to explain anything that goes on in this hobby to a border agent is likely to induce bewilderment.

Simplifying things to "meeting old friends" or "sightseeing the area" may make things easier, while still being true

Sure most of the time, but not always:

I can't think of how to explain a purely roadgeeking trip to customs in a way that wouldn't have them find me suspicious just for how unusual things like clinching highways are.

"Sightseeing."

Heh, I said pretty much exactly that in January 2013 on trip to Montreal.  CBSA pulled me into a room after my plane landed and grilled me about my trip for about a half hour.  Apparently it seemed strange that a 30 year old male American would take a sightseeing trip to Montreal alone during the winter.

FWIW, I think the CBSA agent I spoke was pretty annoyed with me by the time we were done talking.  I assume that he was hoping for someone who actually acting suspiciously.  The agent seemed mostly frustrated the majority of the time we spoke.  I didn't have anywhere to be the day I landed so I was in a pretty good mood.

[kphoger]

I'm also curious how feasible it would be for Canada to open the bridge to Canada-bound traffic without coorperation from the US.

It's been my opinion that the border should be for screening people/goods that aren't allowed into the country, and that other law enforcement operations should be handled by other law enforcement in the interior subject to constitutional rights and civil rights law.  If they had intelligence that some criminals were going to illegally export something, that certainly would warrant temporary exit checks in the area of interest.

1.  Well, if Canada opened the bridge without cooperation from the US, then there would be no agents there to conduct said temporary exit checks.  I've never meant to suggest that everybody should be grilled every time they cross the border anywhere.  But, unless you have infrastructure in place and agents ready to assign, you can't actually conduct any checks on short notice.

2.  I've assumed that the varying levels of scrutiny of exiting traffic have been due to region-specific intel, or at least regional crime trends.  I suppose I could be wrong about that.  Are you suggesting they're arbitrary or imposed uniformly across the whole border?

[JayhawkCO]

Interesting conversation. I will say that, in general, I've never really understood the need to check my luggage when I exit a country. I suppose for the countries that restrict currency or antiquities from leaving the country, that makes sense. But I've also found, largely, that those are the countries with the least thorough search process. I do understand having a passport check so you know that someone is leaving your jurisdiction, however. It is strange that the US doesn't do that.  In theory they're getting the info from the airlines, but you'd think they'd want to do the verification themselves.

[Beltway]

Heh, I said pretty much exactly that in January 2013 on trip to Montreal.  CBSA pulled me into a room after my plane landed and grilled me about my trip for about a half hour.  Apparently it seemed strange that a 30 year old male American would take a sightseeing trip to Montreal alone during the winter.

FWIW, I think the CBSA agent I spoke was pretty annoyed with me by the time we were done talking.  I assume that he was hoping for someone who actually acting suspiciously.  The agent seemed mostly frustrated the majority of the time we spoke.  I didn't have anywhere to be the day I landed so I was in a pretty good mood.

It helps to have friends there -- I have some in Toronto, who are Canadian. And others in NY near Buffalo. Provides extra good reasons for crossing the border.

[kphoger]

I do understand having a passport check so you know that someone is leaving your jurisdiction, however. It is strange that the US doesn't do that.  In theory they're getting the info from the airlines, but you'd think they'd want to do the verification themselves.

Germane to the current conversation, though, the airlines aren't involved in highway crossings at all.