Commentary from The Globe and Mail (one of Canada's national
newspapers):

Welcome to the border

Canadians crossing into the U.S. will now be caught in a nightmare of
bureaucratic bungles, says immigration lawyer HEATHER SEGAL
By HEATHER SEGAL

UPDATED AT 7:07 PM EST Friday, Mar. 7, 2003

New homeland security measures in the United States are a guaranteed
recipe for chaos on the border; a quagmire of bureaucracy bound to
affect millions of Canadians crossing into the States.

Canadians should be extremely concerned about changes in U.S.
immigration policy. As of March 1, the Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS) ceased to exist. Using the rhetoric of enhancing
security, the administration of President George W. Bush created,
instead, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which brings
together the INS and 21 other federal bureaus and agencies. Under the
auspices of homeland security, the U.S. has become an Orwellian world
of agencies, bureaus and directorates, leaving troubling questions
about whether anyone is any safer.

What do these changes mean to Canadians crossing the border for
business or vacations?

Consider that government employees tend to define their role by the
entities that oversee them. Previously, all immigration was overseen by
the INS. Now, three bureaus handle immigration matters. These three
bureaus, each with its own chief, deal with three different, but
related functions. The Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(BICE) is responsible for interior enforcement; the Bureau of Customs
and Border Protection (BCBP) is responsible for enforcement at the
borders; the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS)
handles immigration services. No co-ordination exists among the three
bureaus so, inevitably, communication will be hindered. There will also
likely be clashes in decisions by the officers in charge of the
separate bureaus for services and enforcement.

In the past, when strict new immigration laws were passed, officers
interpreted them as a cue to refuse admissions. Under this
protectionist veil of security, travellers will not only face longer
border lineups, but are also more likely to be denied admission, making
it more difficult for legitimate Canadians to do business in the United
States.

Border officers who work for the enforcement side will also be
responsible for deciding if someone is eligible to enter the U.S. under
the North American free-trade agreement, so we could see an
enforcement, rather than service mentality prevail in order to achieve
minimal risk. "No" will be the word of the day in decisions about
whether travellers can enter.

Of course, the Bush administration contends we must all try to make our
shared border safer. But will this new bureaucracy achieve that goal?
And what is the cost of that goal, particularly if enhanced security is
not achieved? What amount of purported enhanced safety is worth the
potential disastrous effect on the U.S. and Canadian economies?

And things could become even more convoluted. In 2000, Congress created
the Data Management Improvement Act Task Force to evaluate how data
collection and sharing can improve the flow of traffic at U.S. ports of
entry, while enhancing security. The task force recommended creating an
exit system to be run by Canadian immigration officers. In other words,
Canadian officials would document foreigners exiting the U.S. and then
adjudicate them for re-entry.

This suggestion, which is apparently being seriously considered on both
sides of the border, is astonishing considering the U.S. believes
Canada is guilty of lax security. Of course, such a plan would save
Washington billions of dollars, but it would also put Canadian
immigration officials in a deferential position to U.S. officials.

The result of Canadians documenting those exiting the United States
could be disastrous. What if after documenting two million entrances
(the annual figure for entries to the U.S. through Canada), officials
discover that only one million were documented as exiting? Is the net
result that one million people remained in the U.S., or was there a
document error on exit? Are we to suppose that all those unaccounted
for are terrorists? More importantly, will Washington blame Canada for
failing to carry out its exit function adequately?

The U.S. is pressuring Canada to conform to its approach to homeland
security and some observers speculate we will follow suit on some of
these measures. Canada's Minister of Immigration is already talking
about identity cards for Canadians.

No one realized that when President Bush stated in 2001 that the world
was either with the U.S. or with the terrorists, that he was setting
out his bottom line on domestic and foreign policy for the remainder of
his term. He has made security issues and the threat of terrorism a
mechanism of fear with which to obtain the funding and political
legitimacy needed to radically alter the U.S. social climate to his
conservative agenda.

There are more than 5,000 miles of border between Canada and the United
States -- most of it unguarded. Does the Bush administration honestly
think these new measures will deter terrorists from attempting to enter
from Canada? Terrorists, by definition, do not act within the law.
Meanwhile, the majority of law-abiding citizens seeking entry into the
United States will be caught in this bureaucratic quagmire.
Heather N. Segal is chair of the Canadian chapter of the American
Immigration Lawyers Association.

© 2003 Bell Globemedia Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.