(This article was originally written in 2001)
In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in New York and outside Washington D.C., a chorus of voices has called for a common North American security perimeter and the dismantling of the Canada-U.S. border. One Toronto Sun columnist wrote: "Canada must finally cut the crap and agree to longstanding U.S. demands for stringent common visa procedures."
At this highly emotional time, the following case is being urged upon us.
The Canada-U.S. border is too long and porous to be properly policed. It’s time to open our border with the United States as well as the frontier between the U.S. and Mexico. This Fortress North America would feature common immigration and refugee policies and common visa requirements for visitors to the continent. Canadians would forego their own customs and immigration authorities in favour of a new continental authority. With a hardened continental perimeter in place, it would be possible to eliminate the borders within the continent and to allow full mobility of persons in North America. Crossing the border from Canada to the U.S. would be like crossing an inter-provincial border. It would be the same between Mexico and the U.S.
In his recent book, Toward a North American Community (published before the terrorist assaults), Robert Pastor a professor of international relations in Atlanta, makes the case for full continental integration including a continental currency, which he would call the Amero.
In my opinion, far-reaching schemes for North American integration are both highly unrealistic and undesirable.
Given the politics of the Bush administration, there is virtually no prospect for a move to open the frontier with Canada in the absence of a similar move on the U.S. border with Mexico. That is because to prevail in the presidential election in 2004, Bush strategists are counting on winning the support of a higher proportion of the rapidly rising Hispanic vote in the U.S. At his recent meeting in Washington with Mexican President Vicente Fox, George W. Bush proclaimed that no relationship is more important to the United States than that with Mexico.
Even before the terror attacks on the United States, it was going to be a very tough sell to convince American policy makers to open their frontier with Mexico. Several million illegal immigrants, most from Mexico, are now living and working in the U.S. Opening the frontier to allow completely free access for Mexicans to the U.S. would have encouraged a still higher movement of people northward in search of better jobs. While such a step had support from some Republicans, it was bitterly opposed by other members of the president’s party. The terror attacks are certain to harden the positions of those who were opposed to opening the border with Mexico. Opening the border with Canada without a similar move toward Mexico would be seen as a slap in the face toward Hispanics. The present calculus of American politics rules that out.
If the new mood in the United States makes moves to open the border with Mexico and therefore Canada highly unlikely, there are compelling reasons for Canadians to have severe doubts of their own. An open border with the U.S. would raise serious security concerns for us. When I recently crossed the border from backwoods Maine to Edmundston, New Brunswick, the Customs Officer asked me if I was "importing firearms, pepper spray, mace, explosives or alcohol" into Canada. The list made me want to laugh, although I was less amused when two officers searched my car. But I’ve seen weapons that are illegal in Canada taken from U.S. vehicles stopped at the border. The weapons are held by Customs until the visitors leave the country.
The Bush administration is opposed to an international accord to limit the world’s trade in small arms on the grounds that this violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the right of Americans to bear arms. An open border would inevitably import the American gun culture into Canada, something most Canadians strongly oppose.
Guns would not be our only concern. As the Europeans discovered when they set out to open frontiers, we would have concerns about the movement of banned drugs, explosives, pornography, toxic waste, and certain categories of animals, plants and food. In addition, what do we think of the idea of high speed police chases across the border, something the Europeans had to consider?
The problem, of course, is that unlike the European case where there was a balance in size and power among the states involved in opening frontiers, there is no such balance between Canada and the United States. It would be the American way or the highway on this important list of matters that bear heavily on the kind of society we want.
Harsh things have been said on both sides of the border about Canada as a country that has been a soft touch for the entry of potential terrorists. To date, there is no evidence that the perpetrators of the recent attacks on the U.S. entered American territory from Canada. Many Canadians may not want their security interests looked after by the U.S. authorities who admitted the terrorists to their country and allowed some of them to train as pilots for nearly two years in Florida.
Giving up sovereignty over immigration would be disastrous for Canada. As a country that proportionately has grown much more rapidly in population than the U.S. for many decades, Canada has its own immigration and manpower needs. Since the central concern of American immigration policy is to regulate the flow of Mexicans into the U.S., adopting American immigration policies makes no sense for us.
In this volatile time, our ship risks being submerged in the wake of the vessel of our powerful neighbours. Those who have long cherished closer integration with the U.S. and tighter immigration policies should not be allowed to use the huge sympathy Canadians feel for the victims of the recent terrorist assaults to push their agendas. Understandably, the Americans are trying to universalize their conflict to position it as the struggle of all good nations against global evil. In earlier conflicts though, Americans became involved only when their own interests were directly threatened. In two world wars Americans did not go to war when and because their northern neighbours were in the fight.
As the French and the Germans are now doing, we ought to support those aspects of the fight against terrorism that make sense to us, without committing ourselves in advance to do whatever the Americans want us to do. This is not a time to issue blank cheques.
Let each country police its own borders. In the words of Robert Frost: "Good fences make good neighbours."
In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in New York and outside Washington D.C., a chorus of voices has called for a common North American security perimeter and the dismantling of the Canada-U.S. border. One Toronto Sun columnist wrote: "Canada must finally cut the crap and agree to longstanding U.S. demands for stringent common visa procedures."
At this highly emotional time, the following case is being urged upon us.
The Canada-U.S. border is too long and porous to be properly policed. It’s time to open our border with the United States as well as the frontier between the U.S. and Mexico. This Fortress North America would feature common immigration and refugee policies and common visa requirements for visitors to the continent. Canadians would forego their own customs and immigration authorities in favour of a new continental authority. With a hardened continental perimeter in place, it would be possible to eliminate the borders within the continent and to allow full mobility of persons in North America. Crossing the border from Canada to the U.S. would be like crossing an inter-provincial border. It would be the same between Mexico and the U.S.
In his recent book, Toward a North American Community (published before the terrorist assaults), Robert Pastor a professor of international relations in Atlanta, makes the case for full continental integration including a continental currency, which he would call the Amero.
In my opinion, far-reaching schemes for North American integration are both highly unrealistic and undesirable.
Given the politics of the Bush administration, there is virtually no prospect for a move to open the frontier with Canada in the absence of a similar move on the U.S. border with Mexico. That is because to prevail in the presidential election in 2004, Bush strategists are counting on winning the support of a higher proportion of the rapidly rising Hispanic vote in the U.S. At his recent meeting in Washington with Mexican President Vicente Fox, George W. Bush proclaimed that no relationship is more important to the United States than that with Mexico.
Even before the terror attacks on the United States, it was going to be a very tough sell to convince American policy makers to open their frontier with Mexico. Several million illegal immigrants, most from Mexico, are now living and working in the U.S. Opening the frontier to allow completely free access for Mexicans to the U.S. would have encouraged a still higher movement of people northward in search of better jobs. While such a step had support from some Republicans, it was bitterly opposed by other members of the president’s party. The terror attacks are certain to harden the positions of those who were opposed to opening the border with Mexico. Opening the border with Canada without a similar move toward Mexico would be seen as a slap in the face toward Hispanics. The present calculus of American politics rules that out.
If the new mood in the United States makes moves to open the border with Mexico and therefore Canada highly unlikely, there are compelling reasons for Canadians to have severe doubts of their own. An open border with the U.S. would raise serious security concerns for us. When I recently crossed the border from backwoods Maine to Edmundston, New Brunswick, the Customs Officer asked me if I was "importing firearms, pepper spray, mace, explosives or alcohol" into Canada. The list made me want to laugh, although I was less amused when two officers searched my car. But I’ve seen weapons that are illegal in Canada taken from U.S. vehicles stopped at the border. The weapons are held by Customs until the visitors leave the country.
The Bush administration is opposed to an international accord to limit the world’s trade in small arms on the grounds that this violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the right of Americans to bear arms. An open border would inevitably import the American gun culture into Canada, something most Canadians strongly oppose.
Guns would not be our only concern. As the Europeans discovered when they set out to open frontiers, we would have concerns about the movement of banned drugs, explosives, pornography, toxic waste, and certain categories of animals, plants and food. In addition, what do we think of the idea of high speed police chases across the border, something the Europeans had to consider?
The problem, of course, is that unlike the European case where there was a balance in size and power among the states involved in opening frontiers, there is no such balance between Canada and the United States. It would be the American way or the highway on this important list of matters that bear heavily on the kind of society we want.
Harsh things have been said on both sides of the border about Canada as a country that has been a soft touch for the entry of potential terrorists. To date, there is no evidence that the perpetrators of the recent attacks on the U.S. entered American territory from Canada. Many Canadians may not want their security interests looked after by the U.S. authorities who admitted the terrorists to their country and allowed some of them to train as pilots for nearly two years in Florida.
Giving up sovereignty over immigration would be disastrous for Canada. As a country that proportionately has grown much more rapidly in population than the U.S. for many decades, Canada has its own immigration and manpower needs. Since the central concern of American immigration policy is to regulate the flow of Mexicans into the U.S., adopting American immigration policies makes no sense for us.
In this volatile time, our ship risks being submerged in the wake of the vessel of our powerful neighbours. Those who have long cherished closer integration with the U.S. and tighter immigration policies should not be allowed to use the huge sympathy Canadians feel for the victims of the recent terrorist assaults to push their agendas. Understandably, the Americans are trying to universalize their conflict to position it as the struggle of all good nations against global evil. In earlier conflicts though, Americans became involved only when their own interests were directly threatened. In two world wars Americans did not go to war when and because their northern neighbours were in the fight.
As the French and the Germans are now doing, we ought to support those aspects of the fight against terrorism that make sense to us, without committing ourselves in advance to do whatever the Americans want us to do. This is not a time to issue blank cheques.
Let each country police its own borders. In the words of Robert Frost: "Good fences make good neighbours."
No comments:
Post a Comment