PDA

View Full Version : Dept. of Homeland Insecurity



ribbets
October 23rd, 2006, 08:53 AM
My wife and I love to travel Maritime Canada. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are two of the nicest places to visit on earth... Next spring we had planned to visit the Nova Scotia Computer Museum in Annapolis Royal, home of the largest
collection of Kenbak 1's.. Well our budget is going to go up at least $200.00 more now, because we have to get passports.. For as long as I can remember we could drive back and forth with a photo ID any time...I've never had any trouble going into Canada, usually just welcome and have a good trip..I'm glad Erik removed the Political Forum because I might just have to vent a couple of pages worth of verbal venom about the new one party system in the US Govt. called IDIOT..

mbbrutman
October 23rd, 2006, 09:56 AM
I was caught off guard by that too.

In the early 90s I could cross from upstate NY into Ontario just to take a nice drive to an ice-cream stand on the other side of the border. The border crossing guards would occasionally be skeptical, but a complete search of the car usually took care of that.

In the last five years flying into Canada on business I've needed a passport.

Maybe this is a flying thing vs. driving?

carlsson
October 23rd, 2006, 10:48 AM
Within the European Union, we're going in the other direction. Previously, you needed a passport for travelling to most all countries, perhaps with exception of your nearest neighbour (which I suppose Canada is to you). Now with the introduction of new, smart ID cards and integrating passport functionality (fingerprints, bio-data) onto it, one supposedly won't need a special passport except for it. Of course, you need to upgrade your ID, driving license or otherwise to get the functionality.

But $100 each for a passport? Wow, that sounds a tiny bit expensive. Perhaps it is the factual cost, and the state doesn't subvention it.

Chris2005
October 23rd, 2006, 11:12 AM
you're probably right, it's a good thing Erik did away with the political forum. This way we won't have to listen to any political oriented speech in any of the others. Phew glad we don't have to...

Historically Canada has been extremely lax w/who they let into the country. And because we used to enjoy open borders with them, this has become an issue since 9/11. It stands to reason that a tightening of security, umm and that included border security, would take place. It's unfortunate you have to pay additional monies to conduct your joyride (hey I wouldn't like it either) but that's life in the big city. If they'd run their country like one, it might be a different story.

And to suggest this is due to a new "one party system" in the US is absurd. Any level headed democrat (? lol) would want the same measures in place.

Anyone ever hear of the superslab? A huge multi-lane highway between Mexico and Canada (proposed by some nuts). Hey we have to remain/become more international. To hell with sovereignty and national security.

And I would imagine some people would get REAL angry if we built a wall between the US and Mehico. Especially the dope smokers looking for easy access to Tijuana. Ah well.

carlsson
October 23rd, 2006, 11:18 AM
At least yet you don't have to apply for a visa to go to Canada... :-)

IBMMuseum
October 23rd, 2006, 11:29 AM
...Well our budget is going to go up at least $200.00 more now, because we have to get passports.. For as long as I can remember we could drive back and forth with a photo ID any time...I've never had any trouble going into Canada, usually just welcome and have a good trip..I'm glad Erik removed the Political Forum because I might just have to vent a couple of pages worth of verbal venom about the new one party system in the US Govt. called IDIOT..

Actually count your blessings that you don't have to deal more with this agency. I'm doing my fourth visa filing (over $200 a pop with everything counted) to bring my wife into the United States, with the third declined because of a minor technicality. And I'm a heavily-decorated 20 year war veteran continuing to serve in a unit (with a mobilization date announced, which would be my fifth deployment) of the Reserves.

Even though this agency is somewhat in its infancy, it inherits the behavior of the coldhearted parts that went into it. But now it is the unified, bureaucratic department that withholds any legal avenues while turning a blind eye to the droves that cross illegally. Don't get me started, because I can rant about this for some time (and I am doing everything to stop being pulled in).


I was caught off guard by that too.
In the early 90s I could cross from upstate NY into Ontario just to take a nice drive to an ice-cream stand on the other side of the border. The border crossing guards would occasionally be skeptical, but a complete search of the car usually took care of that.

My last crossing:
"What's in the icechest?"
"Ice & a little water, we had a picnic."
"Can I look to make sure?"
"Sure, go right ahead."

Those of you outside of the southern border area of the United States (and I do realize this is an international forum) would not be used to the checkpoints the U.S. has on its own soil (assumably to make sure that the Border Crossing cardholders don't go further into the U.S. than 70 miles). Agents are only supposed to ask if you are a citizen. But commonly I am asked "Where are you going?", "What are you doing?", "Where did you drive from earlier today?", "Are you travelling alone [when everything in the vehicle is visible]?", "Is the car registered to you?" & more (if you don't answer these questions they really start to get interested).

[No, I won't give a chance for someone to invoke Godwin's Law]
Parallels to N**i Germany: "Papers please!"

I've said that I don't care if the NSA wants to listen to all the "I love you"s on the phone as long as it would speed my case. But I know that will never happen. Even if it was the number of passport scans to see how many times I visit (I threw up my hands a few visits ago when a CIS agent at the border further prompted "Why isn't your wife in the United States yet?"; The short answer: "Your employer.").


...In the last five years flying into Canada on business I've needed a passport.
Maybe this is a flying thing vs. driving?

Even walking across either border (at least in the legal way) will require passports very soon. I'll have to look again to see if it is the start or middle of 2008 (phased in sections) before the plan is complete. For some time I've been doing business that way anyhow.

Jorg
October 23rd, 2006, 11:49 AM
At least yet you don't have to apply for a visa to go to Canada... :-)

At least they dont have to give fingerprints and get photographed on entry when they go to Canada.... that would really make you feel like a criminal.

Terry Yager
October 23rd, 2006, 12:09 PM
[No, I won't give a chance for someone to invoke Godwin's Law]
Parallels to N**i Germany: "Papers please!"


http://www.unrealid.com/

--T

Chris2005
October 23rd, 2006, 12:27 PM
Ah there goes Terry with his wacko extremist right wing websites:

"Will those who believe that a national ID number is truly the Mark of the Beast make their voices heard?"

Love ya bub! ;)

I don't believe that IT is the mark of the beast...might pave the way for "it", whatever it is. I believe the literal translation of "mark" in New Testament Greek is "chip". Do with that what you want...

Are we really headed for a national ID card? Maybe so. It would truly be a travesty. Most people in New Jersey would love it, never feeling they have enough "security" (and that's more of a democrat sentiment then anything else). Sorry, let that slip out.

Well, if GW is all for it, what is that going to do for the status of all his precious wetbacks? Seems contradictory. What do I know...

Terry Yager
October 23rd, 2006, 12:36 PM
Ah there goes Terry with his wacko extremist right wing websites:

"Will those who believe that a national ID number is truly the Mark of the Beast make their voices heard?"

Love ya bub! ;)

I don't believe that IT is the mark of the beast...might pave the way for "it", whatever it is. I believe the literal translation of "mark" in New Testament Greek is "chip". Do with that what you want...

Are we really headed for a national ID card? Maybe so. It would truly be a travesty. Most people in New Jersey would love it, never feeling they have enough "security" (and that's more of a democrat sentiment then anything else). Sorry, let that slip out.

Well, if GW is all for it, what is that going to do for the status of all his precious wetbacks? Seems contradictory. What do I know...

I could've linked to a whacko extremist left-wing website:

http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/nationalidsystem.html

Actually, what's next is RFID implants...just like we uze for our livestock now...

--T

Chris2005
October 23rd, 2006, 12:40 PM
"Actually, what's next is rfid implants...just like we uze for our livestock now..."

Hmm, so I guess there's a wee bit of wacko in many of us...

So...if "offered", what are you going to do Terry? Beheading is the only alternative, if we can believe the Bible.

With all the talk of beheading in the book of the Revelation, one guy (who I won't name and don't particularly care for) pointed out that the only culture that still practices it (feel free to comment)...is Islam!

Chris2005
October 23rd, 2006, 12:46 PM
actually I have to revise that a bit...
W/o "the mark", you'll neither be able to buy or sell. Pretty much constitutes starvation I guess.
The beheading is reserved for the ultra-wacko Christians.

Terry Yager
October 23rd, 2006, 12:46 PM
I ain't afraid of dying, but if they break out the cattle prod to persuade me...

--T

Terry Yager
October 23rd, 2006, 02:12 PM
[No, I won't give a chance for someone to invoke Godwin's Law]

Godwin's Law cannot be invoked if the N-bomb is deliberately dropped with the intention of ending the thread under Godwin's Law. Furthermore, the poster of the dreaded word is aware of the possibility of Godwin's Law being invoked, so therefore, Quark's Exception cannot be applied either, under RGB's Restriction. I'm closing the thread IAW the restriction.


It is considered poor form to arbitrarily raise such a comparison with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized codicil that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's Law (in the above sense) will be unsuccessful. This is sometimes referred to as "Quirk's Exception". "RGB's Restriction of Quirk's Exception", also states: "In cases where the subject of the comparison to Hitler fails to recognize the applicability of Quirk's Exception, Quirk's Exception shall not apply and Godwin's Law shall take effect in its normal manner."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

--T