NationStates Jolt Archive

Maybe Obama should re-consider his appointment to Homeland Security Secretary, or at the very least, give her some lessons on diplomacy?

While I remain cautiously optimistic about Obama's election to the Presidency and the selection of his diplomatic corps, perhaps he should put Napolitano under the microscope.

Canada more lax than U.S. about whom it lets in, Napolitano says (http://news.sympatico.msn.cbc.ca/abc/world/contentposting.aspx?isfa=1&feedname=CBC-WORLD-V3&showbyline=True&date=true&newsitemid=napolitano-border-canada021)

A suggestion by the U.S. Homeland Security Secretary that terrorists have routinely entered the United States through Canada - including the perpetrators of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks - caused a kerfuffle in Washington Tuesday.

Janet Napolitano made the comment in an interview Monday with CBC's Washington correspondent, Neil Macdonald.

In the interview, Macdonald asked Napolitano to clarify comments she made last month that the Canadian and Mexican borders must be treated equally.

"Yes, Canada is not Mexico. It doesn't have a drug war going on; it didn't have 6,000 homicides that were drug-related last year," Napolitano said.

"Nonetheless, to the extent that terrorists have come into our country or suspected or known terrorists have entered our country across a border, it's been across the Canadian border. There are real issues there."

When Macdonald asked if she was referring to the 9/11 perpetrators, Napolitano answered: "Not just those but others as well."

Wilson 'frustrated' by comments

That prompted Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, to set the record straight Tuesday.

Wilson told reporters at the Border Trade Alliance meeting in Washington, where he was keynote speaker, that he is "frustrated" that the 9/11 myth has surfaced yet again.

"Unfortunately, misconceptions arise on something as fundamental as where the 9/11 terrorists came from," he said.

"As the 9/11 commission reported in 2004, all of the 9/11 terrorists arrived in the United States from outside North America. They flew to major U.S. airports. They entered the U.S. with documents issued by the United States government, and no 9/11 terrorists came from Canada."
* dons sombrero and awaits verdict

Hasta la vista, baby

Yes god forbid someone figure out our boarder with Canada leaks like a sieve.

It's not an unwise thought, regardless of what your national pride may force you to believe. Just because the 9/11 terrorists did not does not mean it's not still a concern. Perhaps she should have been better informed about how the 9/11 terrorists got into the US, but it's not unprecedented for terrorists to try to get into the United States through the Canadian border.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/01/27/us.canada.border/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Ressam

Big mean woman damage CH's national pride?

I dont understand how her comment is somehow a bad idea.

Maybe it will stop the flow of illegal handguns from the US to Canada.

It's not an unwise thought, regardless of what your national pride may force you to believe. Just because the 9/11 terrorists did not does not mean it's not still a concern. Perhaps she should have been better informed about how the 9/11 terrorists got into the US, but it's not unprecedented for terrorists to try to get into the United States through the Canadian border.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/01/27/us.canada.border/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Ressam
While your points are noted, the article(s) are from 2000 and prior to 9/11. If you have any that are more current, then it might augment your argument.

From the CNN 2000 article:

Canadian Ambassador Raymond Chretien, nephew of the prime minister, attended the hearing, and afterward made clear his government would continue to oppose the stricter controls of an entry-exit system.

"Let me say that when it comes to fighting terrorism our laws are as strict if not more strict than American laws, the ambassador told reporters.
It appears that some Americans want to perpetuate the "myth" as noted in the article that I posted.

I knew it. I always knew it!

Back in 2001, when I was saying, "Stop pulling my leg" and "Don't be silly, it's just a movie" in response to "Hey, Pentagon is under attack!", I have asked once, "By who, Canada?"

While your points are noted, the article(s) are from 2000 and prior to 9/11. If you have any that are more current, then it might augment your argument.

I don't need to augment my argument. There is a precedent for terrorists attempting to get into the US through Canada. That it occurred before 9/11 is irrelevant. There's no reason why paying attention to the Canadian border is a bad idea.

She does have a point. It would be easier for Canada to protect its ports of entry then for the US to treat the Canadian boarder like Mexico.
Could she have said it more gently ?
Yes. But that's assuming we haven't been bringing it up unofficially for years.
Going to have to side with the Obama administration on this case however.

I don't need to augment my argument. There is a precedent for terrorists attempting to get into the US through Canada. That it occurred before 9/11 is irrelevant. There's no reason why paying attention to the Canadian border is a bad idea.
To "equate" it to the Mexican border problems, as Napolitano did, just seems like a bad move, both politically and economically.

To "equate" it to the Mexican border problems, as Napolitano did, just seems like a bad move, both politically and economically.

Hopefully not all Canadian's national pride is so easily bruised.

To "equate" it to the Mexican border problems, as Napolitano did, just seems like a bad move, both politically and economically.

And to pretend like the US-Canadian border does not have problems of its own that need addressing, because it offends your delicate sensibilities, is naive and stupid.

Oh, posh, Canada's part of the US anyways, so long as they keep their airport customs security tight, then we're fine and dandy.

Hopefully not all Canadian's national pride is so easily bruised.
If you have nothing significant to add, prehaps you need another thread? :D

If you have nothing significant to add, prehaps you need another thread? :D

What a mature comment. My point stands. This is nothing but your feathers being ruffled because the big mean Obama lady said that our border with Canada is less then secure. Which is true. There is evidence of that.

I dont think this is the issue you are making it out to be. I have enough faith in Canadians to believe their feelings arent so easily hurt.

I dont think this is the issue you are making it out to be. I have enough faith in Canadians to believe their feelings arent so easily hurt.

*blubber blubber sob bawl* WAH! The mean lady hurt my feelings!

What a mature comment.
You have changed your nation but you haven't changed your ways....off with you now.

You have changed your nation but you haven't changed your ways....off with you now.

So, rather then responding to my point, you just tell me to leave.

The Canadian border isnt secure. Its a good idea to secure it, because terrorists have attempted to use it in the past. The job of Ms. Napolitano is to mend potential holes in our security. Not to step on egg shells so she doesnt ruffle your feathers.

*shrug* The border isnt as secure as it maybe should be. Your hurt feelings dont change that.

Some posters are missing the point I raised earlier about the economic and political backlash and are more wont to play silly ego games.

Fortress U.S.A. bad for Americas (http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/619768):

U.S. President Barack Obama heads to Trinidad today for the Summit of the Americas, where he hopes to improve relations with neighbours who felt ignored by George Bush's Iraq-obsessed administration. His preliminary stop in Mexico City yesterday was a goodwill gesture. So was his lifting of travel restrictions on Cuba. And so is his readiness to engage with Venezuela's self-declared Trotskyite president.

But Obama will get only so far with the message that he is eager to hear out his hemispheric partners and work co-operatively on the economic crisis, drug cartels, migration, poverty and green issues.

What Prime Minister Stephen Harper and others in the 34-nation club urgently want from Obama is credible assurance that the U.S. won't wall itself off with trade-wrecking protectionism and ever thicker borders, as it invests $10 trillion trying to restart its economy.

A Fortress U.S.A. will do the region no good.

The U.S. Congress can hardly expect Mexico or Colombia to take on the drug traffickers and suppress unlawful migration while Washington blocks Mexican truckers and holds up a trade deal that the Colombians want. The Latin leaders argue that America cannot lead the Americas by walling itself off.

Harper's reflex in Trinidad will likely be to highlight areas where Canada is broadly supportive of U.S. policy, such as relaxing the Cuba embargo, and to downplay irritants, such as Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano's troubling view that the U.S. "shouldn't go light on one (border, with Canada) and heavy on the other (with Mexico)."

Yet Harper also takes the view that the global financial crisis must not "reverse the hard-fought progress toward freer trade and investment" in the hemisphere. That being the case, he shouldn't hesitate to make common cause with Latin partners who worry, with good reason, about the U.S. withdrawing into itself.

A strong, multilateral anti-protectionist statement from the Americas summit would strengthen Canada's bilateral case that the U.S. shouldn't freeze out Ontario manufacturers or impose unwarranted border controls that will kill trade and jobs in both countries.

If Obama gets that one message and carries it back to Congress, the summit will have exceeded expectations, and Washington will be on better terms with the neighbourhood.
Canada and the US do more business with each other than any other country.

I'm just going to chuck this one out there.... When traveling from Canada to the United States, one goes through American customs.... manned by American customs agents.... Whose letting the ebil terrowists into American now?

I'm just going to chuck this one out there.... When traveling from Canada to the United States, one goes through American customs.... manned by American customs agents.... Whose letting the ebil terrowists into American now?
I guess it must be the Canadian agents eh? :tongue:

I guess it must be the Canadian agents eh? :tongue:

Nah, they're the ones letting in the guns.

More perspective from our Canadian Ambassador:

The Canada-U.S. Border: Free Trade in a time of Enhanced Security (http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/washington/offices-bureaux/amb/070329.aspx?lang=eng)

The three NAFTA partners are working hard to develop further our economic relationship through the Security and Prosperity Partnership. As part of this Partnership, we should explore ways to increase competitiveness by bringing our investment and regulatory regimes closer together.

And while security measures must make sense for the protection and well being of our citizens, they must also make sense given the particular characteristics of the North American economy -- the integration, the complexity, the immediacy, the inter-dependence of our companies and commercial transactions.

In this way, we can ensure that enhancing continental security does not inhibit legitimate commerce, does not undermine the very real benefits we’ve gained from the NAFTA, but instead helps our companies and citizens participate and compete successfully in a challenging world.

This would really be strike three, if you consider the HS memo attacking veterans as potential terrorists... But let's play what's wrong with this statement.

From a CNN interview (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0904/19/sotu.01.html)with Ms Napolitano

... What we have to do is target the real evil-doers in this business, the employers who consistently hire illegal labor, the human traffickers who are exploiting human misery.

And yes, when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil. But anyway, going after those as well.
...


Did you get it? The answer is "... because crossing the border is not a crime [by itself]".

Fire her ass.

Some posters are missing the point I raised earlier about the economic and political backlash and are more wont to play silly ego games.

Fortress U.S.A. bad for Americas (http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/619768):


Canada and the US do more business with each other than any other country.

What an idiotic assumption on behalf of Harper. What reason does America have for freezing trade? None. Beefing up border security doesnt mean not letting in goods via trade.

I'm just going to chuck this one out there.... When traveling from Canada to the United States, one goes through American customs.... manned by American customs agents.... Whose letting the ebil terrowists into American now?

Holy shit, its like youre not paying attention. No one said Canada lets them in. We're going to beef up our security so we dont let them in.
This would really be strike three, if you consider the HS memo attacking veterans as potential terrorists... But let's play what's wrong with this statement.

From a CNN interview (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0904/19/sotu.01.html)with Ms Napolitano

... What we have to do is target the real evil-doers in this business, the employers who consistently hire illegal labor, the human traffickers who are exploiting human misery.

And yes, when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil. But anyway, going after those as well.
...


Did you get it? The answer is "... because crossing the border is not a crime [by itself]".

Fire her ass.

Crossing the border isnt a crime all by itself. Its the manenr in which you cross the border.

Youre just mad she wants to target the real issue with illegal immigration. The businesses who exploit cheap labor to make a buck. If businesses stopped doing that, youd probably see illegal immigration decrease.

But hey, you know, this is NSG we dont look at facts.

This would really be strike three, if you consider the HS memo attacking veterans as potential terrorists... But let's play what's wrong with this statement.

From a CNN interview (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0904/19/sotu.01.html)with Ms Napolitano

... What we have to do is target the real evil-doers in this business, the employers who consistently hire illegal labor, the human traffickers who are exploiting human misery.

And yes, when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil. But anyway, going after those as well.
...


Did you get it? The answer is "... because crossing the border is not a crime [by itself]".

Fire her ass.
After having read half of that interview, I am inclined to agree with you to a point. She is raw and her talking points are very unrefined and some of them are just political double talk. She needs to build some skill sets in diplomacy for sure.....whether she should be fired at this point in time, I am not sure, but something should be done.

This would really be strike three, if you consider the HS memo attacking veterans as potential terrorists... But let's play what's wrong with this statement.

From a CNN interview (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0904/19/sotu.01.html)with Ms Napolitano

... What we have to do is target the real evil-doers in this business, the employers who consistently hire illegal labor, the human traffickers who are exploiting human misery.

And yes, when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil. But anyway, going after those as well.
...



Did you get it? The answer is "... because crossing the border is not a crime [by itself]".

Fire her ass.

Two more strikes and she's out. Honestly, in a time of terrorist threats from many different countries, taking blows at one of our closest allies really isn't going to solve anything. What she did was similar to looking at a scar and claiming nothing ever happened. This is a closed debate; the 9/11 perpetrators never crossed the Canadian border. Even if they did, I don't see how she can blame Canada. After all, it is our responsibility to protect our border too, isn't it?

But hey, you know, this is NSG we dont look at facts.
Perhaps that is why you haven't provided any so far in this thread? Quit attacking the posters and defend your talking points if you have any.

I don't see how she can blame Canada.
Yeah, still missing the part where she did.

After all, it is our responsibility to protect our border too, isn't it?

Thats basically whats being said.

Perhaps that is why you haven't provided any so far in this thread?
As opposed to you, right? Youve just made a bunch of false claims.
Quit attacking the posters
If you think Im flaming, you know where moderation is. I wouldnt expect much though. A Mod has poster here twice. Id expect Id have been told to knock it off if I was flaming.

Disagreeing with you is not flaming.

Yeah, still missing the part where she did.

What was there to miss? Anyone that read the opening post could derive from the title of the article that she was blaming Canada. While she may not have directly stated it in the interview (which she pretty much did), when do politicians even make direct statements?

Look, the fact of the matter is, we dont treat our borders the same. We spend more money and resources watching our Mexican border then we do our Canadian border. Beefing up border security on the Canadian border doesnt mean we think the Canadians are 'lax' or 'terrorists'. It just means that its a potential security risk that we're going to have to deal with.

Nor does it mean we're going to stop trading with Canada. We still trade with Mexico.

Some posters are missing the point I raised earlier about the economic and political backlash and are more wont to play silly ego games.

Fortress U.S.A. bad for Americas (http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/619768):


Canada and the US do more business with each other than any other country.

I agree we need to do more business. Free trade is absolutely vital, with out it all of our standards of living would plummet.

I think the point we are trying to get at is in times of increased security we could use some more assurances about the Canadian Visa policies and procedures.

Among people I talk to in Asia it is no secret that getting in to Canada is extremely easy. For all intensive purposes Canada and the US share the largest unguarded boarder in the world(at least pre 9/11 haven't been there since).
We are concerned lax policy may pose a security concern to us.
As for Mexico, that is a temporary measure because violence from a drug war has spilled across our boarder. Once we are certain Mexico policies on whom they issue trucking licenses to is safe will renew trucking business as usual.
As for Janet Napolitano if you have an issue with how she conducts her self please take it up with Hillary Clinton or President Obama that is what they are there for.

What was there to miss? Anyone that read the opening post could derive from the title of the article that she was blaming Canada. While she may not have directly stated it in the interview (which she pretty much did), when do politicians even make direct statements?

The title of the article? Seriously? A journalist made a catchy title to an article to grab headlines, and this means she somehow said that?

Show me where she said "Canada is lax on border security"?

The closet she comes is saying that Canada lets people into their country we wouldnt let in. Which could be true or false, I dont know. But that sure as hell doesnt mean that she thinks its somehow Canada's fault if terrorists cross our border. And they have tried in the past.


Guess what people? No ones border is air tight. People can enter Canada illegally. Whats wrong with improving our side of the border just in case someone slips by the Canadians?

What was there to miss? Anyone that read the opening post could derive from the title of the article that she was blaming Canada. While she may not have directly stated it in the interview (which she pretty much did), when do politicians even make direct statements?
Thank you. :)

Thank you. :)

Wow, then your arguement is just as weak as his is. Guess who titles articles? Journalists. To grab headlines.

Im still waiting for a direct quote. Until then, youre talking crap.

The title of the article? Seriously? A journalist made a catchy title to an article to grab headlines, and this means she somehow said that?

Show me where she said "Canada is lax on border security"?

The closet she comes is saying that Canada lets people into their country we wouldnt let in. Which could be true or false, I dont know. But that sure as hell doesnt mean that she thinks its somehow Canada's fault if terrorists cross our border. And they have tried in the past.


Guess what people? No ones border is air tight. People can enter Canada illegally. Whats wrong with improving our side of the border just in case someone slips by the Canadians?

Again, she may not have directly stated that, but she sure did imply it, by heavily dropping such quotes as "Canada lets more people slip by than the U.S." It's called political-speak, it's what politicians use... Sometimes you have to read between the lines to understand what politicians are really saying. I could be wrong, but she sure does suggest that Canada is lax when it comes to security based on her statements.

Again, she may not have directly stated that, but she sure did imply it, by heavily dropping such quotes as "Canada lets more people slip by than the U.S."
Which she never said in the OP's article. Youre slandering her.
but she sure does suggest that Canada is lax when it comes to security based on her statements.
No, she suggests that we maybe need to watch both our borders equally, and that Canada has different standards for who it allows in the country then the US does. Which may or may not be true. If she was mistaken on that count, attack her for that. But dont say shes saying that Canada has lax border security when she never says so.

And stop with this 'implied' crap. It doesnt work like that. We can argue about what she really meant all we want, but the direct quotes is what matters.

"The fact of the matter is that Canada allows people into its country that we do not allow into ours," she said.

"That's why you have to have a border, and you have to have border policies that make sense."

Liberal MP John McKay, who was at the conference, said Napolitano's comments alarmed him.

"If you are, in fact, negotiating a managed border, and your negotiating partner believes a set of mythology, then you have problems," he said "You try to work on the basis of fact, not on the basis of myth."

Saying Canada is lax about whom it allows into the country is "plain nonsense," he added.

(emphasis mine)

I guess that's the main issue. Whether or not Canada really lets in people the US wouldn't, or if its a 'myth' as McKay said.

It'd be interesting to see any sort of criteria, or something that could confirm or deny this. There is certainly a perception in the US that Canada's security is laxer than ours.

(emphasis mine)

I guess that's the main issue. Whether or not Canada really lets in people the US wouldn't

Yes. If she was wrong on that, fine. Lets criticize her for that. If shes making uninformed statements about Canadian immigration regulations.


Lets not put words in her mouth and jump to conclusions because our national pride is bruised.

EDIT: Besides, Canada letting people in we dont wouldnt necissarially mean theyre laxer, like so many people keep trying to pretend. It just means they have different criteria.

(emphasis mine)

I guess that's the main issue. Whether or not Canada really lets in people the US wouldn't, or if its a 'myth' as McKay said.

It'd be interesting to see any sort of criteria, or something that could confirm or deny this. There is certainly a perception in the US that Canada's security is laxer than ours.
Exactly. Still waiting for someone to actually provide some concrete proof to back up their accussations.

Exactly. Still waiting for someone to actually provide some concrete proof to back up their accussations.

What do I have to proof? I never claimed Canada was laxer. I dont know if they are.


Im saying she didnt say what you think she said. You havent given me a direct quote. Just the title some journalist made to grab headlines and a few quotes from her that you are reading into to see what she's 'implying'. Youre being dishonest. Not that Im suprised.

...But dont say shes saying that Canada has lax border security when she never says so.....

She is definitely saying that Canada's border security is more lax than the US's.

...

But then, Napolitano appeared to make matters worse by explaining to the border conference Tuesday why the Canada and Mexico borders should be treated equally.

"The fact of the matter is that Canada allows people into its country that we do not allow into ours," she said.

...

Also, Ahmed Ressam did not cross the Canadian border. He flew in to LAX from Canada and was caught because the Canadian authorities (who had been surveilling him for a couple of years) informed the USian ones. This is decidedly different from the depiction of Ressan ambling across some unprotected border unbeknownst to Canadian authorities.

She is definitely saying that Canada's border security is more lax than the US's.


No, she is saying you guys have different criteria. Thats all. No where is the word 'lax' used. Do you have different criteria?

Let me pose a purely hypotherical example:

Lets say the US does not allow communists into its country. But allows in fascists.

Lets say Canada allows communists into its country. But does not allow fascists.

Is either side being more 'lax'? No. There is different criteria.

No, she is saying you guys have different criteria. Thats all. No where is the word 'lax' used. Do you have different criteria?

No. She is definitely saying that Canada lets in more people than the US. Not just different, but less demanding.

We do have different criteria. obviously.

I have yet to see any evidence that Canada is more lax than the US, though.

No. She is definitely saying that Canada lets in more people than the US. Not just different, but less demanding.
Where does she say that? Or are you going to play the "she implied it!" game too? The word 'lax' is never used. She never says its 'less demanding'.

Come on GoG. You wouldnt take this kind of arguement from anyone else.

I have yet to see any evidence that Canada is more lax than the US, though.
And I have yet to see her say that.

This thread should really be renamed "Journalist Sensationalizes Title: Canadians Angered."

And I have yet to see her say that.

Seriously people. One quote. Just one quote from her (not the headline) without any 'reading between the lines' and Ill admit I was wrong.


When I get back. I have class.

Typical Democrat blind to the terrorist threats that Mexico and, it's immigrants to America, truly poses to the US.
Sorry but we have two questions to ask here:
1. Are there Canadian sleeper cells in America?
answer: No

2. a. Are there Mexican sleeper cells in America?
answer: yes. They work for the drug cartels but their aim is to kill and maim innocent Americans. That is what makes them terrorist cells.

b. Have the Mexican terrorist cells ever carried out strikes in the US?
Answer: Yes. They have killed several Americans and have even abducted American children. What was that little boy's name last year?

The DHS and local law enforcement across the country has verified the existence of these sleeper cells and the fact that they have been operating in the US and targeting US citizens on American territory.

The fact that a Democrat who is currently in charge of DHS claims that Canada is the bigger threat is typical of Democrats blindness to the national security threat posed by illegal immigrants from Mexico.

Not saying that all Mexican illegals are terrorists but the children of illegals are especially susceptible to joining the terror cells. Last month, a guy in South Carolina was killed by a cell whose members were youth of Mexican descent whose parents had entered the US illegally.

Yes god forbid someone figure out our boarder with Canada leaks like a sieve.

You mean just like our border with Mexico?

I don't need to augment my argument. There is a precedent for terrorists attempting to get into the US through Canada. That it occurred before 9/11 is irrelevant. There's no reason why paying attention to the Canadian border is a bad idea.

there is more precedent for terrorists successfully entering the US from Mexico. How many successfully entered and carried attacks from Canada? Zero.

Just one of the hundreds of illegal immigrant sleeper from Mexico that are currently in existence in the US at the acquisence the Democratic party and immigration activist groups.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/12/cartel.teens/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Those terrorists did not come from Canada, they came from Mexico.

For all intensive purposes

I hate to get pedantic as I make more than my share of mistakes, but no no no no no! What the hell is an intensive purpose? The correct term is "for all intents and purposes...." End of rant. :p

The fact that a Democrat who is currently in charge of DHS claims that Canada is the bigger threat is typical of Democrats blindness to the national security threat posed by illegal immigrants from Mexico.

Saying "we should tighten the Canadian border" is not the same as saying "Canada is more at risk of allowing terrorists through than Mexico". Sorry.

I hate to get pedantic as I make more than my share of mistakes, but no no no no no! What the hell is an intensive purpose? The correct term is "for all intents and purposes...." End of rant. :p

Because outside of the visa stamping facilities along the main roads, you can pretty much walk back and force across the boarder and never see a boarder patrol officer, or anyone for that matter. When I was a teenager I camped with tent as close to straddling the boarders, of Canada and North Dakota, as I could make out.
Also leaving some arguing room about the EU and what not since that sort of redefines what an unguarded boarder means.

Only 2 things to add to this thread:


A suggestion by the U.S. Homeland Security Secretary that terrorists have routinely entered the United States through Canada - including the perpetrators of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks - caused a kerfuffle in Washington Tuesday.
1. Do people actually, and I mean this in all honesty, really use the word 'kerfluffle'?!?! :eek:

2. While it is worthy to note the lack of security at the northern border, the point is that all borders are not created equal and the U.S. - Mexican border clearly needs alot more attention, both political and military, than the U.S. - Canadian one, if only for how we priporitize our law enforcement resources.

http://www.policeone.com/writers/columnists/Fred-Burton/articles/1811238-When-the-Mexican-drug-trade-hits-the-border/

"Cartels invest quite a bit in training these hit men to operate in the United States. Often they are trained in Mexico, then sent back across to serve as a kind of “sleeper cell” until they are tapped to take out a delinquent U.S. drug dealer. The frequency and ease with which Americans travel to and from Mexico covers any suspicion that might be raised."

Where does she say that? Or are you going to play the "she implied it!" game too? The word 'lax' is never used. She never says its 'less demanding'.

Come on GoG. You wouldnt take this kind of arguement from anyone else.


And I have yet to see her say that.

If you were to look at my post upthread, you would see that I bolded a phrase where she says that Canada would let in a person that the US would not.

How could that possibly mean anything other than that the US is more stringent than Canada?

Annnd thus CH goes back on the ignore list, because he makes my brain hurt.

You mean just like our border with Mexico?

Yeah, and we spend god only knows how much money every year trying to plug that particular leak. Meanwhile the Canadian boarder gets ignore.

If you were to look at my post upthread, you would see that I bolded a phrase where she says that Canada would let in a person that the US would not.

How could that possibly mean anything other than that the US is more stringent than Canada?

Different standards. Honestly, this has already been covered in this thread.

This woman is crazy, nothing beats the border security provided by the Royal Canadian Kilted Yaksmen (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x79zxf_ren-stimpy-the-royal-canadian-kilte_shortfilms).

What a mature comment. My point stands. This is nothing but your feathers being ruffled because the big mean Obama lady said that our border with Canada is less then secure. Which is true. There is evidence of that.

I dont think this is the issue you are making it out to be. I have enough faith in Canadians to believe their feelings arent so easily hurt.

Obama's a lady!? :eek:

:p

How could that possibly mean anything other than that the US is more stringent than Canada?

Because all she says is Canada lets in people we wouldnt. Like I said, you could let in communists and not fascists, while we let in fascists but not communists.

Youre putting words in her mouth.

Lets not put words in her mouth
You are definitely guilty of that many times in this thread.

Nah, they're the ones letting in the guns.

Nothing wrong with guns it's just some of the idiots that decide to use them improperly. Now if Canada had the gun laws we do then there wouldn't be a problem.

You are definitely guilty of that many times in this thread.

Oh? Where? Or are you just resorting to pot shots now?

Im saying she didnt say what you think she said.
What did I think she said?

You havent given me a direct quote.
That is not true.....try reading the OP again. Then read the full article and get back to me.

Just the title some journalist made to grab headlines and a few quotes from her that you are reading into to see what she's 'implying'.
That is your take on it pal. I know what she said......I posted the article which either you have misread or don't understand.....I don't know which.

Youre being dishonest. Not that Im suprised.
Show me where I have been dishonest in this thread.

What did I think she said?


That is not true.....try reading the OP again. Then read the full article and get back to me.
I have. Apperantly better then you. Like I said. No where has the word 'lax' been used by her.
That is your take on it pal. I know what she said......I posted the article which either you have misread or don't understand.....I don't know which.
No, see, Im actually reading it.
Show me where I have been dishonest in this thread.
The whole damn thread.


Still waiting on the quote of hers.

This is nothing but your feathers being ruffled because the big mean Obama lady said that our border with Canada is less then secure.
This is nothing more than you goose-stepping for the current administration. You used to be so damned critical of the US when Bush was in power but now you're a god damned apologist.

Which is true. There is evidence of that.
Burden of proof is on he who makes the claim.

It is true that you can go to and from Canada without getting picked up by the boarder patrol but you can do the same in and out of Mexico just as easily with tin snips.

I dont think this is the issue you are making it out to be. I have enough faith in Canadians to believe their feelings arent so easily hurt.
You must not know many Canuckistanis then, bunch of fussy plebs.

Show me where I have been dishonest in this thread.

The whole damn thread.


You are definitely guilty of that many times in this thread.

Oh? Where? Or are you just resorting to pot shots now?


Lets not put words in her mouth

You are definitely guilty of that many times in this thread.

Cut out the sniping and stick to the topic, guys. We wouldn't want a kerfuffle, would we?

Different standards. Honestly, this has already been covered in this thread.

Because all she says is Canada lets in people we wouldnt. Like I said, you could let in communists and not fascists, while we let in fascists but not communists.

Youre putting words in her mouth.

Just because it is possible to interpret her words differently, by ignoring the context, does not mean that she did not want to communicate her belief that Canada has looser security standards.

There are an infinite number of things she could have meant. However, to interpret her words "Canada allows people into its country that we do not allow into ours" in response to a question of border security, as meaning something other than Canada having more lax security, is a bit of a strech.

Just because it is possible to interpret her words differently, by ignoring the context, does not mean that she did not want to communicate her belief that Canada has looser security standards.

There are an infinite number of things she could have meant. However, to interpret her words "Canada allows people into its country that we do not allow into ours" in response to a question of border security, as meaning something other than Canada having more lax security, is a bit of a strech.

In other words, only your interpretation is correct, and an interpretation that disagrees with your preconceptions is "a bit of a stretch."

Get over yourself. You don't have a monopoly on opinion.

In other words, only your interpretation is correct, and an interpretation that disagrees with your preconceptions is "a bit of a stretch."

Get over yourself. You don't have a monopoly on opinion.

Not quite. I have an interpretation that is supported by the context and past examples, i.e. evidence.

You have an interpretation that only makes sense when you ignore the context and past examples.

Apparently, the controversey spills over to another day:

Kenney fires back at U.S. security boss over remarks (http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/abc/home/contentposting.aspx?isfa=1&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V3&showbyline=True&date=true&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20090422%2fUSA_Border_090422)

The U.S. Homeland Security chief has made controversial comments about Canada's immigration policy that are being slammed as "factually inaccurate" and "wrong" north of the border.

Speaking in Washington Tuesday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano seemingly slammed Canada's immigration policy saying, "Canada is allowing people into our country that we do not allow into ours."

She made the comments hot on the heels of another contentious remark she made, where she mistakenly suggested that the 9-11 terrorists entered the U.S. through Canada.

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney fired back at Napolitano on CTV Newsnet's Power Play Wednesday.

"That's absolutely wrong. Ever since 9-11, and before 9-11, Canada has co-operated with the United States on issues of continental security, including as it relates to immigration. As the prime minister said when President (Barack) Obama was here, we view any threat to the United States as a threat to Canada," he said.
Also, in the article, a comment from a Liberal MP that reflect a bit about what I was referring to in the OP regarding Obama's administration:

Liberal MP John McKay attended Napolitano's speech in Washington and called the comment an "eye roller and a little distressing."

"Apparently, our trade policy is going to be dependent on our immigration policy," he told Power Play Wednesday.

McKay also criticized Napolitano, a former Arizona governor, for not visiting the U.S-Canadian border in the first 90 days of taking her job, and for focusing more on security than on trade.

He also extended his criticism to include Obama, something few Canadian politicians have yet dared to do.

"If this is change to believe in, well, I think we better review our belief in President Obama," he charged. "We still hold a candle for President Obama and wish him every success, but to include these types of comments 90 days into the administration and such gross, factual errors, we half expected it out of the Bush administration, but it means we have a lot further to go than we ever thought before."
The above comment also focuses on what I stated earlier about the economic consequences of a hard line border policy.

If you Canadians don't stop bitching I swear we will annex your country for security measures.

Not quite. I have an interpretation that is supported by the context and past examples, i.e. evidence.

You have an interpretation that only makes sense when you ignore the context and past examples.
Exactly. It would appear that some posters take on what was actually stated and their own beliefs as to what was actually stated is somewhat skewed.

Not quite. I have an interpretation that is supported by the context and past examples, i.e. evidence.

You have an interpretation that only makes sense when you ignore the context and past examples.

I have an interpretation based on the words that she was quoted as speaking. You have an interpretation that relies on putting words into her mouth that she never spoke. Your interpretation is only supported by your own bias.

Exactly. It would appear that some posters take on what was actually stated and their own beliefs as to what was actually stated is somewhat skewed.

Such as what? Saying she meant Canada has lax security measures when she not once said that, explicitly? What's skewed about taking her words at face value instead of adding your own personal slant in the form of things she never once said?

I have an interpretation based on the words that she was quoted as speaking. You have an interpretation that relies on putting words into her mouth that she never spoke. Your interpretation is only supported by your own bias.

My interpretation relies on the following:

She said this: "Canada allows people into its country that we do not allow into ours."

This is a direct quote. It comes from a question and answer period after a speech she gave. Someone had asked her specifically about the issue of the perception that Canadian security is more lax than USian security (in otherwords, exactly what we are discussing). The above quote is part of her response to the question.

Linky. (http://imperialvalleynews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5307&Itemid=1)

So, when we consider the context, it is obvious that she is discussing the apparent difference in laxity between the two nations.

And this is not the only evidence. There is also the simple fact that this is not the first time a US official made these remarks. It has gotten so bad that Canadian officials complain of this myth resurfacing over and over again:

Wilson told reporters at the Border Trade Alliance meeting in Washington, where he was keynote speaker, that he is "frustrated" that the 9/11 myth has surfaced yet again.

Linky. (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/04/21/napolitano-border-canada021.html)

Now, please show me any evidence you have that supports your interpretation.

Crossing the border isnt a crime all by itself. Its the manenr in which you cross the border.

Except that crossing the border in these cases *is* a crime, since she has made it perfectly clear in that very statement whom she was talking about:

"And yes, when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil. But anyway, going after those as well."
That means that they are workers who have illegally come to this country. Crossing the border illegally, is very much a crime.

Seriously, this woman is being retarded and I don't see why you are defending her on this statement. It doesn't make sense.

My interpretation relies on the following:

She said this: "Canada allows people into its country that we do not allow into ours."

This is a direct quote. It comes from a question and answer period after a speech she gave. Someone had asked her specifically about the issue of the perception that Canadian security is more lax than USian security (in otherwords, exactly what we are discussing). The above quote is part of her response to the question.

Linky. (http://imperialvalleynews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5307&Itemid=1)

So, when we consider the context, it is obvious that she is discussing the apparent difference in laxity between the two nations.
Thanks for posting that interview. The more I read about "the big mean Obama lady" the more I am inclined to believe that she is not cut out for the job or that she needs to hone her diplomatic skill sets:

Question: Good morning, Madam Secretary. My name is Peter Nelson. I'm the Executive Director of the Atlantic Provinces Trucking Association on the East coast of Canada, representing New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland.

First, let me remind you that on 9/11 the Atlantic Provinces welcomed 30,000 Americans who were stranded near, into our homes, as they landed in Gander, Newfoundland, Halifax, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. They overwhelmed the hotels and most people stayed in our homes.

Secondly, we have the best lobster in the world, coming out of the Bay of Fundy. Come visit.

Our issue in the trucking industry in Atlantic, Canada, certainly is that 12 months a year, we're bringing our fresh fruit and produce from Florida to the Southwest and California and Mexico. It's costing us a billion dollars more a year in new fees since 9/11, mostly brought in by your department.

Secretary Napolitano: All right. Well—
It's a trade issue?
Question: That's a trade—

Secretary Napolitano: That's a trade issue, and I will say that the fees that are charged, the Congress says "charge this fee" so that we don't have to appropriate money from taxpayers. So that's why we have a fee structure.

Question: The Canadian consumer is paying that.

Secretary Napolitano: I understand that. But again, as you understand, and I think you can, I think the decision made, and fairly so, by the former Congress was that trade should pay the fee for some of the additional security associated with it.

Now the rule of reason has to apply, and you cannot fee your way into an unreasonable state. So if we are feeing our way into an unreasonable state, we need to know that.
Ahhhh so it is a trade issue insofar as it is related to the cost of border security implimented by her department. Nice. Her non comment regarding 30,000 Americans being accommodated on Canadian soil on 9/11 is also noted.

Not quite. I have an interpretation that is supported by the context and past examples, i.e. evidence.

You have an interpretation that only makes sense when you ignore the context and past examples.

No, you have an interpetation based on what you want to read, based on some bizzare vendetta or something.

I have an interpertation based on what actually came out of her mouth.

Im done repeating myself. Some of you are hell bent on it being what you want it to be, rather then what was said.

What an idiotic assumption on behalf of Harper. What reason does America have for freezing trade? None. Beefing up border security doesnt mean not letting in goods via trade.



Holy shit, its like youre not paying attention. No one said Canada lets them in. We're going to beef up our security so we dont let them in.


Crossing the border isnt a crime all by itself. Its the manenr in which you cross the border.

Youre just mad she wants to target the real issue with illegal immigration. The businesses who exploit cheap labor to make a buck. If businesses stopped doing that, youd probably see illegal immigration decrease.

But hey, you know, this is NSG we dont look at facts.
You're so full of crap, it's hardly worth the effort to correct you... But improperly crossing the border is a crime. According to 8 USC 1325, as amended in 1990, improperly crossing the border into this country is a misdemeanor on the first offense, and a felony if you do it a second time.

That anyone wouldn't at least recognize improper border crossing is illegal is amazing.

What an idiotic assumption on behalf of Harper. What reason does America have for freezing trade? None. Beefing up border security doesnt mean not letting in goods via trade.



Holy shit, its like youre not paying attention. No one said Canada lets them in. We're going to beef up our security so we dont let them in.


Crossing the border isnt a crime all by itself. Its the manenr in which you cross the border.

Youre just mad she wants to target the real issue with illegal immigration. The businesses who exploit cheap labor to make a buck. If businesses stopped doing that, youd probably see illegal immigration decrease.

But hey, you know, this is NSG we dont look at facts.

Two years ago, I would have agreed with you. However, now that our economy is tanking, evidence shows that illegal immigration is actually on the downturn as opposed to a few years ago. In addition, if she was intending to target illegal immigration, she probably would have turned to Mexico, like most other U.S. politicians have done in the past.

Except that crossing the border in these cases *is* a crime, since she has made it perfectly clear in that very statement whom she was talking about:


That means that they are workers who have illegally come to this country. Crossing the border illegally, is very much a crime.

Seriously, this woman is being retarded and I don't see why you are defending her on this statement. It doesn't make sense.

Before 9/11, it was illegal to cross the Mexican border illegally because it was a closed border but it was never illegal to cross th Canadian border because it was always open.

That was supposed to change after 9/11 due to concerns over terrorism.

I thought that I would check out the local Conservative newspaper to see what they said about this issue, and while I remain a liberal, I think they got this one right in regards to Ms. Napolitano:

The border for dummies (http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/story.html?id=1520295//)

Can someone please tell us how U. S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano got her job? She appears to be about as knowledgeable about border issues as a late-night radio call-in yahoo.

In an interview broadcast Monday on the CBC, Ms. Napolitano attempted to justify her call for stricter border security on the premise that "suspected or known terrorists" have entered the U. S. across the Canadian border, including the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack.

All the 9/11 terrorists, of course, entered the United States directly from overseas. The notion that some arrived via Canada is a myth that briefly popped up in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, and was then quickly debunked.

Informed of her error, Ms. Napolitano blustered: "I can't talk to that. I can talk about the future. And here's the future. The future is we have borders."

Just what does that mean, exactly?

Just a few weeks ago, Ms. Napolitano equated Canada's border to Mexico's, suggesting they deserved the same treatment. Mexico is engulfed in a drug war that left more than 5,000 dead last year, and which is spawning a spillover kidnapping epidemic in Arizona. So many Mexicans enter the United States illegally that a multi-billion-dollar barrier has been built from Texas to California to keep them out.

In Canada, on the other hand, the main problem is congestion resulting from cross-border trade. Not quite the same thing, is it?
The National Post may be a little more crass in their delivery, but they are bang on with the message.

Gotta love the NP.

Being someone who crosses the border (Canadian - American) sometimes, and a Canadian, what I have to say is that Napolitano is a FAIL. There's no way around it.

But of course, all the Americans won't care as long as they get their maple syrup and bacon. Never mind this (http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/blog/blog.aspx?ID=1021). (Yes, the graph sucks. Deal with it)

So, politicaly, Napolitano is being awesome. Stateside, that is.

This woman is crazy, nothing beats the border security provided by the Royal Canadian Kilted Yaksmen (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x79zxf_ren-stimpy-the-royal-canadian-kilte_shortfilms).
Butt that is the old Canadian anthem.....God Save the Queen. :tongue:

No, you have an interpetation based on what you want to read, based on some bizzare vendetta or something.

I have an interpertation based on what actually came out of her mouth.

Im done repeating myself. Some of you are hell bent on it being what you want it to be, rather then what was said.

Please see the evidence I posted upthread. Thank you.

Two years ago, I would have agreed with you. However, now that our economy is tanking, evidence shows that illegal immigration is actually on the downturn as opposed to a few years ago. In addition, if she was intending to target illegal immigration, she probably would have turned to Mexico, like most other U.S. politicians have done in the past.

Many illegals now continue north to Canada, as the Canadian economy has not suffered nearly as badly, due to more regulation (http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2009/0423_canada_nivola.aspx).

It appears that John McCain is picking up the ball dropped by Napolitano

McCain Repeats False Claim That Sept. 11 Hijackers Entered U.S. From Canada (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/24/mccain-repeats-dubious-claim-sept-hijackers-entered-canada/)

Although McCain is out to lunch on that matter, at least he was kinder on the other matter about the border:

Canadians also have beef a with Napolitano over her claims that the United States' northern border and southern border should get similar treatment, even though the southern border is strained by the violent drug war in Mexico.

McCain indicated Friday he appreciated the difference between the two borders.

"The difference, obviously, is, with all due respect to the Mexicans, there's not corruption on our northern border. And, unfortunately, there is significant corruption, great corruption and drug cartels on our southern border," he said.
Ball and a strike for Johnny.