Karen Gordon

Canadians warned about visiting US

The US tightened border controls to keep militants out

By Ian Gunn
BBC correspondent in Vancouver


The Canadian Government has issued a travel advisory to its citizens about
visiting the United States.

Because of tightened border controls in America, Canadians born in some
Middle Eastern countries should now think carefully before entering the
United States, Ottawa says.

We can't tell the Americans what to do on their own territory. What we're
telling them is that we don't accept this and we find it very troubling

American border regulations introduced last month require that people born
in Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan or Syria be photographed and fingerprinted as
they enter the US - even if they are now full citizens of other countries,
including Canada.

That has prompted the travel warning from the Canadian Government.

This week it advised its citizens who were born in any of the five
countries to "consider carefully whether they should attempt to enter the
US for any reason, including transit to or from third countries".


'Second-class Canadians'

In the Canadian parliament on Wednesday, politicians accused Washington of
harassing Arab-Canadians.

One Syrian-born member of parliament said the American rules make him a
second-class Canadian.

Canadian Foreign Minister Bill Graham says he has already registered his
strongest disapproval to US Secretary of State Colin Powell.

He added that he believes changes will be made to the American move when
common sense prevails.

The American regulations come as a convenient target for Canadian
politicians who sense growing unease amongst Canadians with US policy in
the Middle East.

Many Canadians also worry about increased administration and delays at the
border, which can be expensive for their export businesses.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
'I love my country. It's my government I fear.'

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chris

Current citizenship has nothing to do with the latest US measures. They
don't target those people because they are Canadians, they do it because
those people fit the physical description of the 9/11 terrorists. Therefore
pre-screening all those people, regardless their current citizenship, it's
the right thing to do. If they don't like it, nobody forces them to visit
US. What's the big deal!
Chris

"Karen Gordon" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Canadians warned about visiting US
    > The US tightened border controls to keep militants out
    > By Ian Gunn
    > BBC correspondent in Vancouver
    > The Canadian Government has issued a travel advisory to its citizens about
    > visiting the United States.
    > Because of tightened border controls in America, Canadians born in some
    > Middle Eastern countries should now think carefully before entering the
    > United States, Ottawa says.
    > We can't tell the Americans what to do on their own territory. What we're
    > telling them is that we don't accept this and we find it very troubling
    > American border regulations introduced last month require that people born
    > in Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan or Syria be photographed and fingerprinted as
    > they enter the US - even if they are now full citizens of other countries,
    > including Canada.
    > That has prompted the travel warning from the Canadian Government.
    > This week it advised its citizens who were born in any of the five
    > countries to "consider carefully whether they should attempt to enter the
    > US for any reason, including transit to or from third countries".
    > 'Second-class Canadians'
    > In the Canadian parliament on Wednesday, politicians accused Washington of
    > harassing Arab-Canadians.
    > One Syrian-born member of parliament said the American rules make him a
    > second-class Canadian.
    > Canadian Foreign Minister Bill Graham says he has already registered his
    > strongest disapproval to US Secretary of State Colin Powell.
    > He added that he believes changes will be made to the American move when
    > common sense prevails.
    > The American regulations come as a convenient target for Canadian
    > politicians who sense growing unease amongst Canadians with US policy in
    > the Middle East.
    > Many Canadians also worry about increased administration and delays at the
    > border, which can be expensive for their export businesses.
    > --
    > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    > 'I love my country. It's my government I fear.'
    > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SALI

Chris -

Picture this...
Tomorrow if something close to 9/11 were to happen again in the US (GOD FORBID!) and if this time around it were found that Romanians were behind it all, would you still be "big deal"-ing the same way whenever you too had to go thru all the racial profiling, fingerprinting, etc. every time you were southbound??? And all this for the simple reason that you originate from Romania, what if you have been a Canadian citizen for 10 years.

Its a volatile world today. Changes in laws, international relations, border restrictions, et al do not only depend on something like events on 9/11. A lot of other political factors come into play in world policies in general and those relating to specific countries in particular that would/could have a bearing on the current world scene at any moment in time. Who could have imagined the once so-friendly Iraq-US relations turning so bitter today?

So the next time you raise your head every time something like this is discussed to comment on what is right and what is wrong, remember it could happen to *you* tomorrow. Come back then to say the same that you say today.

"If they don't like it, nobody forces them to visit US. "
Believe me hon, you would not like it either if you are profiled based on your race or nationality(original) for whatever reasons. And yes, people could need to visit the US for business, education, meeting relatives among the so many other perfectly legal reasons.

-Sali

Stuart Brook

Chris wrote:
    >
    > Current citizenship has nothing to do with the latest US measures. They
    > don't target those people because they are Canadians, they do it because
    > those people fit the physical description of the 9/11 terrorists. Therefore
    > pre-screening all those people, regardless their current citizenship, it's
    > the right thing to do. If they don't like it, nobody forces them to visit
    > US. What's the big deal!
    > Chris

It's called "racial profiling" and by its very nature permits all manner
of abuses of the system by the enforcers. It is also more "guilty until
proven innocent" type action.

That's what's the big deal.

Chris

Yes Stuart, racial profiling. If that's the way it's gotta be, that's the
way it's gotta be! Everybody knows that nobody in the US has asked those 19
terrorists of 9/11 to come to US and kill over 3,000 innocent people. Yes,
most of them got US visas legally, so INS/FBI/CIA has to share a big part of
the blame, but since then US has tighten-up all the visa requirements,
including all the border crossings. Everybody would do similar things to
protect the country and its borders. Abuses, what abuses?, taking pictures
and fingerprints, this I don't see it as an abuse, is part of protecting
their borders, and they can do it in any way they wish. Is their OWN
country, they are the ONLY one responsible for its protection. And about the
"guilty until proven innocent", they are not targeting whites, blacks,
Chinese, only those who fit the description of those 19 terrorists. Too bad
for the majority of people from that area, India/Pakistan/Middle-East, they
have relatively nothing to do with those tragic events, but how you separate
the bad guys from the good ones when it's impossible to read people's minds?
So what Americans are doing right now is to limit the risks of new terrorist
attacks on their own soil.
Big deal (for you), no big deal (for me), nobody has the right to tell them
(Americans) how to protect their own borders, and nobody can pretend that
being a Canadian citizen or Canadian PR should give you a special privilege
to cross into the US. If they want to take your picture and fingerprint you,
well, it's nothing you can do! Or, avoid as much as possible US. No big deal
(for me).
Chris
PS If some people get offended or humiliated by these new measures, I urge
them to think about those 3,000 innocent victims of 9/11 and where those 19
hijackers came from.

"Stuart Brook" wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
    > Chris wrote:
    > >
    > > Current citizenship has nothing to do with the latest US measures. They
    > > don't target those people because they are Canadians, they do it because
    > > those people fit the physical description of the 9/11 terrorists.
Therefore
    > > pre-screening all those people, regardless their current citizenship,
it's
    > > the right thing to do. If they don't like it, nobody forces them to
visit
    > > US. What's the big deal!
    > > Chris
    > It's called "racial profiling" and by its very nature permits all manner
    > of abuses of the system by the enforcers. It is also more "guilty until
    > proven innocent" type action.
    > That's what's the big deal.

Jonathan Makepeace

I think the Canadian government is right to be VERY concerned about
the deportation to Syria of a dual citizen of both Canada and Syria
who was transiting the U.S. on his Canadian passport.

As I understand it, it was perfectly legal under both international
and U.S. law for the U.S. to deport the fellow to Syria, but can you
imagine the outrage if Canada had done the same thing to a dual
citizen of Syria and the U.S.? In my opinion, that incident alone was
enough to justify Ottawa's travel advisory. The only possible
justification I can think of is that the U.S. seriously thought the
guy was/is a terrorist, and they were hoping to put him out of
commission for a few years by deporting him to Syria, where he would
face charges for not reporting for mandatory military service. I
don't know what information the U.S. acted on, but no matter how you
slice it, it comes up VERY scary.

The fingerprinting issue is more complicated. I'm not convinced the
policy makes sense. It's based on the list of countries whose
governments officially support terrorism, but those aren't the
countries that the 9/11 terrorists came from. You've gotta wonder
whether fingerprinting Iranians, Iraqis, and Syrians but not
Egyptians, Pakistanis, or Saudis makes sense. On the other hand, the
policy is based on an objective criterion. The U.S. is fingerprinting
people with ties to countries whose governments officially sponsor
terrorism. Is that racist? Not necessarily.

The Canadian Liberals and U.S. Republicans in our respective
governments don't much like each other, but I hope both can keep cool
and remember that their decisions affect the lives and livelihoods of
millions of people who need to cross our shared border every year.

Chris

Yes, of course, I will fully agree with any extra-measures against ALL
people with Romanian background, including myself. If you fit the
description of the ones who did those criminal acts, innocent or not, you
must abide by the laws of the country you are heading to (US in this case).
Like it or not. But rest assure, NOBODY in Europe, not even in today's
Russia (except maybe Chechynia), has any intentions, any ideas, any thoughts
of launching terrorist attacks against any American targets on American soil
or abroad. I am talking about people born in Europe, and 99% are white. I
cannot bet that a French with Marrocan/Algerian/Tunisian name and physical
appearance would get the same treatment as a native French citizen. The same
for Australians, NZ, S. Americans and S. Africans. Blacks and Chinese as
well. At least not in the next 50-100 years.
When it comes down to protect your own borders, the security of your own
country, no international law can stop you to do it.
But what's the big deal with this racial profiling? If they ask you to
provide fingerprints, or to take your pictures, you just do it, and if you
pass you are free to get into the country and visit your family/friends or
to do your own business. And btw, when I asked political asylum in Sweden,
1989, I was photographed and fingerprinted as well, that was the
requirement, and nobody got angry because of that.
Chris

"SALI" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Chris -
    > Picture this...
    > Tomorrow if something close to 9/11 were to happen again in the US (GOD
    > FORBID!) and if this time around it were found that Romanians were
    > behind it all, would you still be "big deal"-ing the same way whenever
    > you too had to go thru all the racial profiling, fingerprinting, etc.
    > every time you were southbound??? And all this for the simple reason
    > that you originate from Romania, what if you have been a Canadian
    > citizen for 10 years.
    > Its a volatile world today. Changes in laws, international relations,
    > border restrictions, et al do not only depend on something like events
    > on 9/11. A lot of other political factors come into play in world
    > policies in general and those relating to specific countries in
    > particular that would/could have a bearing on the current world scene at
    > any moment in time. Who could have imagined the once so-friendly Iraq-US
    > relations turning so bitter today?
    > So the next time you raise your head every time something like this is
    > discussed to comment on what is right and what is wrong, remember it
    > could happen to *you* tomorrow. Come back then to say the same that you
    > say today.
    > "If they don't like it, nobody forces them to visit US. "
    > Believe me hon, you would not like it either if you are profiled based
    > on your race or nationality(original) for whatever reasons. And yes,
    > people could need to visit the US for business, education, meeting
    > relatives among the so many other perfectly legal reasons.
    > -Sali
    > --
    > Posted via http://britishexpats.com

ccqiu

Why can't he renounce his Syrian citizenship and passport? No body forced him to keep Syrian citizenship. If he wants to keep it, then no one has the right to complain about him being treated like a Syrian. If the guy violated Syrian law while being in Syrian, the Canadian government would be able to do nothing about it - even though he is also a Canadian citizen. That's how this dual citizenship thing works, as far as I understand. So what's there to complain?

Stuart Brook

Chris wrote:
    >
    > Yes Stuart, racial profiling. If that's the way it's gotta be, that's the
    > way it's gotta be!

And watch you scream loudly if you are the subject of some arbitrary
profile.

Stuart Brook

Chris wrote:
    >
    > Yes, of course, I will fully agree with any extra-measures against ALL
    > people with Romanian background, including myself. If you fit the
    > description of the ones who did those criminal acts, innocent or not, you
    > must abide by the laws of the country you are heading to (US in this case).
    > Like it or not. But rest assure, NOBODY in Europe, not even in today's
    > Russia (except maybe Chechynia), has any intentions, any ideas, any thoughts
    > of launching terrorist attacks against any American targets on American soil
    > or abroad. I am talking about people born in Europe, and 99% are white. I
    > cannot bet that a French with Marrocan/Algerian/Tunisian name and physical
    > appearance would get the same treatment as a native French citizen. The same
    > for Australians, NZ, S. Americans and S. Africans. Blacks and Chinese as
    > well. At least not in the next 50-100 years.
    > When it comes down to protect your own borders, the security of your own
    > country, no international law can stop you to do it.
    > But what's the big deal with this racial profiling? If they ask you to
    > provide fingerprints, or to take your pictures, you just do it, and if you
    > pass you are free to get into the country and visit your family/friends or
    > to do your own business. And btw, when I asked political asylum in Sweden,
    > 1989, I was photographed and fingerprinted as well, that was the
    > requirement, and nobody got angry because of that.
    > Chris

The point is that this is not a mechanism to protect the borders. The
INS, the FBI, the CIA are unable to track the physical numbers of people
who enter the US on a daily basis. This is a "feel good" operation
using US taxpayers money to make it look to the US people that the
government is doing something about Sept. 11 It simply a sham facade.

The Wizzard

I tihnk one good example was the fact there is a Canadian MP who happens to
have syrian citizenship as well as Canadian. So he said how idiotic the idea
is that if he had to visit the USA on government type business then he would
have to be stopped and photographed and fingerprinted. Imagine if he became
the Prime Minister.
You could say that because one of the al queda guys was an American that
Canada should photograph and fingerprint every american who visits, iwonder
how pleased Bush would be to be fingerprinted and photographed and put on
file as a suspect.
If the US wants a properly secure border then it should check everyone
equally. Otherwise they are going to end up concentrating so hard on the
"usual suspects" that they completely miss the real terrorists.

SALI

That was a good example Wiz. Even if there were a 100 Lind Walkers (whatever the American Al Queda guy's name was), Canada could however, never afford to fingerprint and photograph Americans who enter the Canadian borders. Thats when it proves very rightly what Stuart said. Its simply a "look good" exercise on the part of the Americans when they try to do the same. Its a sham facade.

And its not about "fitting the description" of those who commit heinous acts Chris. They can come in any color (yes, white included). You talk about Europe. What Hitler did was no less than 9/11 and if I am not mistaken he was a German and so an European. Shouldn't all Germans be profiled in the same manner everywhere they go, by your definition, to "protect" the borders. Don't be ridiculous!

Billy

You are naive my friend. Does US really care about those vietnamese on the
ground when they dropped their bombs? What about the secret bombing campaign
in Cambodia?

I think you and I know too much to give the government a shed of our sympathy.

They are elected pigs, no less. A group of human beings without conscience,
not even to those who have elected them.

And believe me - if you are a relative of the Saudi prince, you carry the
immediate carte blanche to come and go as you please. What fingerprints!

    >
    > The Canadian Liberals and U.S. Republicans in our respective
    > governments don't much like each other, but I hope both can keep cool
    > and remember that their decisions affect the lives and livelihoods of
    > millions of people who need to cross our shared border every year.

Chris

No, no, no, you don't take the past and compare it with the today's events.
Hitler, and his fanatical ideas, died over 50 years ago, for the past half
of the century nothing like that happened in Europe (except Yugoslavian
conflict which is something that we are not going to discuss it at all).
Germans are not terrorists, they are citizens of one of the most developed
country in the world. Yes, if you wanna do a profile on them you can say
that they are cold, selfish, unfriendly, rude most of the time, and like
them are most of the Nordic people, but that does not make them a danger for
the international community. Or another example, because the barbaric
ottomans did a lot of destruction in Europe centuries ago, that does not
mean that citizens of today's Turkey are a danger for the international
community. But once again, where the 9/11 hijackers, Al Qaeda members, those
that bombed that disco in Bali, etc., etc., etc., came from? And are they
Europeans, Australians, etc.? No, they are, and came from the same part of
the world, this is India/Pakistan/Middle East, all of them have mostly the
same physical appearance, same names, same religion. Therefore, for me what
US is trying to accomplish with these new measures is to limit the access of
those people into the US. Because most of those 19 hijackers came into US
with legal student/tourist visas, but none of them was so stupid to declare
that their real intentions were to kill Americans, how in the hell can you
trust those people? It's enough to let just one person with deadly ideas in
his/her mind, out of 100, Ahmed Assad for instance, the guy with the LAX
case, and you will allow another tragedy to happen. Unfortunately, because
of that 1% (this is my own estimation, but might be more or less) the rest
of the people with names and place of birth in that part of the world must
abide by the same rule. But if this 99% does not like these new measures US
has, or will impose soon, why not they get together, wherever they might be,
and DESTROY (financially or physically) the other 1%. I would like to see
ALL people from that area, living in Canada, or around the world, go to that
area and just get rid of all anti-Americans, either in India, Pakistan,
Middle-East, Indonesia, Philippines, etc. Let's get rid of that 1% and US
would have no more reasons to impose you any visas, photo or fingerprinting
requirements. You want them, the Americans, to treat you equally, and I
agree with you entirely, but before that you MUST show them that you really
are with them, and this means getting rid of that 1% (read anti-American
sentiment). You do that, and I will assure you that all these new measures
you all are complaining about will disappear as soon as possible.
Chris.
PS After the WW2 ended, Germany was an occupied country, West by Allies,
East by Soviets, to make sure that no more little Hitlers and that diabolic
ideology will show-up again, if you dared to compare Hitler and his ideology
with the today's events, I am pretty sure that you would like to see the
entire area in question, I repeat the ENTIRE area, occupied indefinitely by
NATO (led by US). Would you like that? Personally I wouldn't mind at all.

"SALI" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > That was a good example Wiz. Even if there were a 100 Lind Walkers
    > (whatever the American Al Queda guy's name was), Canada could however,
    > never afford to fingerprint and photograph Americans who enter the
    > Canadian borders. Thats when it proves very rightly what Stuart said.
    > Its simply a "look good" exercise on the part of the Americans when they
    > try to do the same. Its a sham facade.
    > And its not about "fitting the description" of those who commit heinous
    > acts Chris. They can come in any color (yes, white included). You talk
    > about Europe. What Hitler did was no less than 9/11 and if I am not
    > mistaken he was a German and so an European. Shouldn't all Germans be
    > profiled in the same manner everywhere they go, by your definition, to
    > "protect" the borders. Don't be ridiculous!
    > --
    > Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Stuart Brook

Chris wrote:
    >
    > No, no, no, you don't take the past and compare it with the today's events.
    > Hitler, and his fanatical ideas, died over 50 years ago, for the past half
    > of the century nothing like that happened in Europe (except Yugoslavian
    > conflict which is something that we are not going to discuss it at all).

Wrong! Naziism is still alive and well.

But you miss the point.

    > Germans are not terrorists,
they are citizens of one of the most developed
    > country in the world.

Tell that to the relatives of those who died at the hands of the Bader
Meinhoff group.

There are terrorists in all nations.

    > No, they are, and came from the same part of
    > the world, this is India/Pakistan/Middle East, all of them have mostly the
    > same physical appearance, same names, same religion. Therefore, for me what
    > US is trying to accomplish with these new measures is to limit the access of
    > those people into the US. Because most of those 19 hijackers came into US
    > with legal student/tourist visas, but none of them was so stupid to declare
    > that their real intentions were to kill Americans, how in the hell can you
    > trust those people?

What you are failing to grasp is that applies TO EVERYBODY - There are
10s of thousands of people of Middle eastern descent who enter the US
annually who look just like the terrorists, who come from the same
places who are totally law abaiding.

Any person you let into your country may potentially be a terrorist, or
a pedophile, or a rapist, or they might just be nice ordinary people.

You just fail to understand that criminals and terrorists come from all
walks of life, from all countries. Walker Linde was an American. The
Unabomber was an American. McVeigh was an American. Carla Homonka
(sp?) was a Canadian, Jack the Ripper was probably a Brit.

Race, colour, birthplace do not a criminal make.

Stuart