Canadians to be charged a fee for entering the USA
- Thread starter VanIsle
- Start date
^^ laughs at the guy who calls me a leftie but says he's more leftie than I am ^^
lol!
!!BLAME BUSH!!
lol!
!!BLAME BUSH!!
Actually it only effects entry through a customs port. Travelling via commuter methods, automobile, train or bus won't be effected.
Although i'm personally against charging fees of people visiting the usa (I'm american), we do have to pay the salaries of customs employees and it's more fair to have those actually using the services to pay rather then the average tax payer. It also is a very small fee, nothing to really get upset over. Canada charges much higher fees if I simply mail a package into the country, something the usa has never done, and hopefully never will.
Although i'm personally against charging fees of people visiting the usa (I'm american), we do have to pay the salaries of customs employees and it's more fair to have those actually using the services to pay rather then the average tax payer. It also is a very small fee, nothing to really get upset over. Canada charges much higher fees if I simply mail a package into the country, something the usa has never done, and hopefully never will.
As a Canadian living and working in the states I have to ask why would you leave Canada anyhow? Keep your money in Canada. Unless you just have to go buy a pair of Carhartts,pick up a six of schlitz malt liquor or need diabetes why cross the border?
desperate means..........means desprate measures
and now you have us law enforcement working on Canadian soil. nah, they aint gunna integrate yas LOL
Steve, if ya readin this, or one of his "minders" are, charge them $11.50, fairs fair, Canada is a much nicer country to visit!
and now you have us law enforcement working on Canadian soil. nah, they aint gunna integrate yas LOL
Steve, if ya readin this, or one of his "minders" are, charge them $11.50, fairs fair, Canada is a much nicer country to visit!
I haven't traveled to the US in nearly 4 years. I used to accept last minute work assignments in the US as a favor to some of my clients who have operations in the US or are US based. I have had several negative experiences with the Homeland Gestapo regarding TN Visas. Some agents were polite and respectful, but others were rude and hostile. Since I don't need the hassle, I stopped accepting US work assignments. I've never been harassed if traveling as a tourist, but because of my negative experiences traveling on business I am boycotting the US as a tourist destination.
Also, Canadians who cross border shop to save a few pennies are effectively transferring wealth from Canada to the US at the expense of fellow Canadians. When you factor in hotel and gas, you probably aren't saving much. If you spend that same money in Canada you are creating jobs for fellow Canadians, who will pay taxes instead of collecting EI or welfare. I personally find such behavior offensive. Given a choice Canadians should choose Canada.
If your purpose is a sunny vacation, go to the Caribbean instead, where the governments don't consider Canadian tourists as potential terrorists. I recommend Cuba as inexpensive destination where most people are happy and genuinely friendly.
Las Terrazas Apartments
Departure Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 Havana
Reviews:
2.95 (19 Reviews)
Sunwing Vacations
View Hotel Details
1 Bedroom Apartment
Breakfast | 8 Days
Out: Mon Jan 9 4:00pm - 7:30pm
Ret: Tue Jan 17 0:15am - 3:45am
$145
+ $280 Taxes
Or a nicer hotel on a beach?
Riu Varadero
Departure Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 Varadero
Reviews:
3.38 (153 Reviews)
Signature Vacations
Room
All Inclusive | 8 Days
Out: Mon Jan 9 4:00pm - 7:30pm
Ret: Tue Jan 17 0:15am - 3:45am
$535
+ $280 Taxes
All Inclusive Vacations & Vacation Packages | Flight Network
Meanwhile back in the USA:
Ceding Liberty to Terror: Senate Votes Against Due-Process Rights
By Conor Friedersdorf
Dec 2 2011, 11:17 AM ET 64 Asked to deny presidential authority to indefinitely detain Americans without charges or a trial, they declined, citing the threat of al-Qaeda.
Is it lawful for the president to order any American held indefinitely as a terrorist, without formal charges, evidence presented in open court, a trial by jury, or a standard of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt"? The U.S. Senate had a chance Wednesday to assert that no, a president does not possess that power -- that the United States Constitution guarantees due process.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) urged her colleagues to seize the opportunity. "We as a Congress are being asked, for the first time certainly since I have been in this body, to affirmatively authorize that an American citizen can be picked up and held indefinitely without being charged or tried. That is a very big deal, because in 1971 we passed a law that said you cannot do this. This was after the internment of Japanese-American citizens in World War II," she said. "What we are talking about here is the right of our government, as specifically authorized in a law by Congress, to say that a citizen of the United States can be arrested and essentially held without trial forever."
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) agreed.
"If we believe an American citizen is guilty or will be guilty of acts of terrorism, can we detain them indefinitely?" he said. "Can we ignore their constitutional rights and hold them indefinitely, without warning them of their right to remain silent, without advising them of their right to counsel, without giving them the basic protections of our Constitution? I don't believe that should be the standard."
In the end, however, Feinstein and Durbin lost the debate.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...nate-votes-against-due-process-rights/249388/
“Not since the McCarthy era has the US sought to legislate the indefinite detention of people without charge or trial and without any real ability to challenge their detention,” said Andrea Prasow, senior counterterrorism counsel at Human Rights Watch.
Also compare Cuba's Human Rights problems with the USA:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/cuba/report-2011
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/usa/report-2011
Also, Canadians who cross border shop to save a few pennies are effectively transferring wealth from Canada to the US at the expense of fellow Canadians. When you factor in hotel and gas, you probably aren't saving much. If you spend that same money in Canada you are creating jobs for fellow Canadians, who will pay taxes instead of collecting EI or welfare. I personally find such behavior offensive. Given a choice Canadians should choose Canada.
If your purpose is a sunny vacation, go to the Caribbean instead, where the governments don't consider Canadian tourists as potential terrorists. I recommend Cuba as inexpensive destination where most people are happy and genuinely friendly.
Las Terrazas Apartments
Departure Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 Havana
Reviews:
Sunwing Vacations
View Hotel Details
1 Bedroom Apartment
Breakfast | 8 Days
Out: Mon Jan 9 4:00pm - 7:30pm
Ret: Tue Jan 17 0:15am - 3:45am
$145
+ $280 Taxes
Or a nicer hotel on a beach?
Riu Varadero
Departure Date: Mon Jan 9, 2012 Varadero
Reviews:
Signature Vacations
Room
All Inclusive | 8 Days
Out: Mon Jan 9 4:00pm - 7:30pm
Ret: Tue Jan 17 0:15am - 3:45am
$535
+ $280 Taxes
All Inclusive Vacations & Vacation Packages | Flight Network
Meanwhile back in the USA:
Ceding Liberty to Terror: Senate Votes Against Due-Process Rights
By Conor Friedersdorf
Dec 2 2011, 11:17 AM ET 64 Asked to deny presidential authority to indefinitely detain Americans without charges or a trial, they declined, citing the threat of al-Qaeda.
Is it lawful for the president to order any American held indefinitely as a terrorist, without formal charges, evidence presented in open court, a trial by jury, or a standard of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt"? The U.S. Senate had a chance Wednesday to assert that no, a president does not possess that power -- that the United States Constitution guarantees due process.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) urged her colleagues to seize the opportunity. "We as a Congress are being asked, for the first time certainly since I have been in this body, to affirmatively authorize that an American citizen can be picked up and held indefinitely without being charged or tried. That is a very big deal, because in 1971 we passed a law that said you cannot do this. This was after the internment of Japanese-American citizens in World War II," she said. "What we are talking about here is the right of our government, as specifically authorized in a law by Congress, to say that a citizen of the United States can be arrested and essentially held without trial forever."
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) agreed.
"If we believe an American citizen is guilty or will be guilty of acts of terrorism, can we detain them indefinitely?" he said. "Can we ignore their constitutional rights and hold them indefinitely, without warning them of their right to remain silent, without advising them of their right to counsel, without giving them the basic protections of our Constitution? I don't believe that should be the standard."
In the end, however, Feinstein and Durbin lost the debate.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...nate-votes-against-due-process-rights/249388/
“Not since the McCarthy era has the US sought to legislate the indefinite detention of people without charge or trial and without any real ability to challenge their detention,” said Andrea Prasow, senior counterterrorism counsel at Human Rights Watch.
Also compare Cuba's Human Rights problems with the USA:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/cuba/report-2011
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/usa/report-2011
Last edited:
I've boycotted going to the USA. I've always preferred to spend my money at home in Canada anyways but I flat out refuse to go there ever since they started their Homeland Security B.S. and started demanding passports. This just puts the nail in the coffin. Sadly others will still go. We could just charge them $5.50 per barrel of oil.
Not to make too much of the latest irritant to cross-border travel, noting Canada, Mexico and a small cluster of Caribbean states will still enjoy a fee exemption for visitors arriving in private vehicles, leaving cross-border shoppers untouched. 
.... Rest Obama Knows Better
.... Rest Obama Knows Better
Does this tax apply to Canadians specifically, or to anyone entering the US?
If Canadians specifically, then it's pretty offensive. But if it applies to anyone, including US citizens, entering the US, then it's fair enough.
Depends on the reason. If it's to cover airport maintenance costs, then everyone ought to pay. If it's to cover certain specific processing costs for non-citizens, then all non-US passport-holders ought to pay it, etc.
I'm honestly not sure about this latest incarnation, but before it hit everyone, it
was already in place for years, directed at the vehicles (commercial) that crossed
the border into the USA from both Mexico & Canada (Trucks, Boats, & Aircraft),
and it HAD to be paid in American currency too.
At the time, It jumped from about $5 per crossing to $10, or you could purchase
through a complicated website a "Transponder Decal" for $200 that was good
for the year, was a sticker full of circuitry that could be read from a distance, and
had to be affixed to your windshield.
I'm too lazy on this Sunday morning at this point, but it might be interesting to just
google the words, "Transponder Decal" and see what comes up....
I think it was just a cash grab, directed at pulling $$$ into their country, and it created
another layer of bureaucracy (=employment) to wade through.
You might be right. But the Us is free to do this for whatever reason and we're free not to cross the border, right.
I wouldn't say "free" from crossing the border, at least on a commercial level, as the
economic reality at this point is that they are our largest trading partner, and the only
country that we share a land border with.
Sorry, Ron. I was thinking more about tourists. As for commerce, to ensure it doesn't just become another tarrif, there should be some agreements in place. It might be reasonable to charge a tax on each vehicle crossing to help finance the boarder crossing itself, which woudl apply to all crossers both ways, and set at a price not to make a profit for the government, but merely to legitimately help pay for the border crossing.
Nah, it just leaves the tourist with less money to spend while visiting down there.
Perhaps. But then the US taxpayer who never crosses the border is not left to pay for a border crossing he never uses. So, on the one hand, the US tourism industry might suffer slightly owing to that 5 dollars less per tourist being spent. On the other hand, taxpayers don't have to pay for the border crossings since border-crossers pay for it. I like user-pay concepts.
Also, the same applies in reverse. Why should the average Canadian taxpayer pay for border crossings he never uses? Make thsoe who uses it pay for it. Sure it might hurt the Canadian tourism industry somewhat, but what's the point if it's being subsidized anyway. On the other hand, it would save us on taxes. That's why taxes are so high, we subsidize everything.
I can agree with government paying for education and essential services obviously, but most things should be more user-pay.
Since they are selling off public assets left right and center, we may as well buy the border off them.