--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., Kevin Meynell <kevin@m...> wrote:

> Averill,
>
> >When dealing with sovereign nations, i.e. US and Canada, you can't

make a

> >Law but must have a treaty. That's why when I said earlier that

there

> >Should be a customs/immigration union between the two nations, it

would

> >Have to be negotiated among "equals"
>
> Sure, but there's still no inherent reason why you need border

controls

> Between some countries (USCA is the most obvious example), and why
> Scheme-type agreements couldn't be negotiated. In fact, it really

only at

> The start of the 20th century that countries started thinking about
> regulating the movement of people across their borders, something

that

> gained rapid momentum after the outbreak of the First World War.
>
> Regards,
>
> Kevin Meynell

Don't get me wrong; I'm on your side. I think there should be NO
border checks between the US and Canada. No one is going to agree
with you on this matter more than me. 110%

I was only writing that first observation for a previous comment
made. I wasn't agreeing with the person, but rather showing how
nations do this in the legal sense.

Many times I have come up to the border, especially NY/Quebec and
BC/Washington, and was more than tempted to drive around the "rusty"
gate of a closed crossing with the obligatory warning sign stating
not to do it, and just get back on the road on the other side of the
fence and drive on. I truly pray and hope that one day Americans and
Canadians can do this legally with the gate taken down once and for
all.

By the way, an immigration/customs union dose not mean loss of
sovernty. That only happens when one or both of the countries are co-
conspirators in such a folly.

Averill