Slashdot Mirror

The problem with Trump "calling out" other countries, is that he typically doesn't actually have a leg to stand on because he doesn't seem to know anything about anything. Take the Canadian Diary complaint. No-one seems to know where Trump pulled the 300% tariff untruth

https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/trade-commerce/tariff-tarif/2018/01-99/ch04-2018-eng.pdf

You're welcome.

Source: Am Canadian. We do tariff dairy, not just from the US, but from everywhere (France cheeses please!) so protect our own dairy farmer through a supply management scheme meant to garantee them to revenue. Welcome to Protectionism, it's ok when we do it, but somehow not when Trump does it. It's hypocritical. Trump is right as far as Dairy is concerned.

http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/travel-voyage/ssi-sis-eng.html

under the heading "what to expect" while it doesnt say that they can force you to unlock it, i provide a second piece of evidence:

http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/6/8162337/iphone-unlock-border-agents-canada

they can detain you for hindering their duties (which is a very general charge and most border agencies have such a law)

Oh and i have personally been requested to unlock my phone. Mine was for tax reasons as they wanted to make sure that i was correctly declaring the value of what i was bringing across the border. Border agencies EVERYWHERE have more power and less rules than the police simply because they are there to protect the border and thus the country which is why this is more prevalent in western countries than other countries. the root of the problem is that law has yet to catch up to technology and given that at the border they already have you in a tough place (you clearly have places to go) they can see what interpretations they can justify from overly broad rules and guidelines.

finally:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/culture/commuting/can-us-customs-officers-legally-search-my-phone-when-driving-across-the-border/article34100953/

To quote: "âoeCBSA officers have the legal authority under Section 99 of the Customs Act to examine personal baggage, including personal electronic devices, and conveyances and goods upon arrival into and on departure from Canada,â a CBSA spokesman said in an e-mail."

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-52.6/FullText.html

"Examination of goods

        99 (1) An officer may

                (a) at any time up to the time of release, examine any goods that have been imported and open or cause to be opened any package or container of imported goods and take samples of imported goods in reasonable amounts;

                (b) at any time up to the time of release, examine any mail that has been imported and, subject to this section, open or cause to be opened any such mail that the officer suspects on reasonable grounds contains any goods referred to in the Customs Tariff, or any goods the importation of which is prohibited, controlled or regulated under any other Act of Parliament, and take samples of anything contained in such mail in reasonable amounts;

                (c) at any time up to the time of exportation, examine any goods that have been reported under section 95 and open or cause to be opened any package or container of such goods and take samples of such goods in reasonable amounts;"

Your phone can easily bee seen as a container of goods, Worst case senario is they say that it had something to do with duties and they will get away with it.
"

1) I've already posted the links elsewhere for New York (which you conveniently forgot about???), Ohio, and Michigan.

In this thread? No, that was Florida.

2) Your math (and "logic") still sucks - it's a "what if" scenario. Try to stick to the real world.

Except that we're discussing your hypothetical world in which every tax district in the world has jurisdiction over every other tax district.

Also - this other ridiculous claim of yours - "Your locality has no jurisdiction over a company existing outside that locality and, therefore, no right or reason to collect taxes from them; " fails in the real world.

No, it doesn't, and you're about to see why...

Ever bring back goods through customs?

No, but my father in law is a customs agent and has been consulted in this matter.

Pass over your exemptions, you pay, even though the items were purchased in an area that has no jurisdiction over you.

That's a federal import duty, not sales tax, and you are being charged, not the seller who resides outside the borders of th government imposing the duty. That does not indicate that your local tax district has jurisdiction outside its own borers.If you did not pay sales tax on the item when you bought it and it happens to be something that would be taxable in your locality, you do still ow sales tax in your local tax district. That's right you owe it not the seller, and the seller can't get in trouble for not collecting it. Ever wonder why? Let me explain again: Because your local tax district has no jurisdiction over a seller outside its own borders.

And you can pay your tax, and get a refund from the area that taxed you

Again, it's a duty, and there's no such "world law" that requires every tax authority, everywhere, to refund your sales tax just because you had to pay a duty. But, since you gave this example:

(for example, you buy something in Canada and pay Canadian taxes on it, then pay taxes again at the US. Mail your receipts and proof of tax to the provincial tax authority and they will refund the tax paid)

Canada passed a law which only covers non-commercial transactions and only applies to certain goods. Also not that, as of the 1st of this month, refund requests of $2 or less will be denied. Also note that this policy only applies in Canada. It's likely that at least one other country does something similar, but that's that country's government making concessions in order to attract tourist money, not your local tax districts enforcing jurisdiction (which they don't have) to make them refund tax they charged that happened to overlap a federal duty amount you also had to pay.

The US also claims world-wide tax jurisdiction over Americans who haven't lived in the US for years. Now they're enforcing it by requiring banks in other countries to hand over financial information on customers who are US citizens.

You also claim you are correct on this matter. That doesn't make it so, no matter how much you might try to intimidate.

We've had this for a little while in Canada, and it works quite well. What they've done is re-purpose the Nexus Card for security lines.

This is a complete mistatement of what the Nexus card does for you at airports.

It does not allow you to skip security, it allows you to self clear customs and immigration going between the US and Canada.

The only thing it does for you in terms of security is put you in the same line as first class passengers which gets you to the front of the line faster. You still have to go through screening, have your carry on xrayed, pass through a metal detector and you still can be "randomly" selected to have your junk scanned for the Canada version of the TSA to have a peek at. The actual security theatre you endure is identical.

And it only gives you that going between the US and Canada. Domestic Canadian travel your fancy Nexus doesn't get you squat.

We've had this for a little while in Canada, and it works quite well. What they've done is re-purpose the Nexus Card for security lines.
 
Nexus is a joint Canada-US initiative whereby applicants get pre-screened by both countries. If you are approved you can use self-declarations plus iris scanning (air) or RFID card (land) when entering Canada from anywhere or entering the US from Canada. The program is kludgy but it keeps getting improved. It costs $50 for five years and is absolutely indispensable for anyone who travels more than occasionally (saves about an hour every time you cross the border).

For airport security, what they've done in most major airports is create a special line for Nexus holders. Not only do you skip lining up with the great unwashed, but you also pass on the "dance dance revolution" pad that randomly selects passengers for the "you're going to miss you flight so that we can fondle your junk" line. Nexus lines are set up for domestic, transborder and international flights so you don't need to be entering the US.

It's not a perfect setup, since the use of a border-crossing card for domestic flights is a bit confusing. However, it's CATSA's first outbreak of common sense in years so overall it's a big step forward.

You didn't look very hard, then:

Not particularly, no. I don't waste my time on anything more than a cursory check - you're the one making the claim, so unless the evidence can be easily located I'm going to depend on you to provide your sources.

Your turn: source, please.

Sure

00:00 - 00:15 BSO G was requested to assist with Mr. DZIEKANSKI’S processing as he has some limited knowledge of the Polish language. BSO E completes Mr. DZIEKANSKI’S immigration process
and releases him.

00:15 - 00:39 BSO G discovers Mr. DZIEKANSKI had resumed sitting in the immigration secondary area and advises him a second time that he was free to leave.

00:39 - 00:45 Mr. DZIEKANSKI was escorted by BSO G to the customs secondary area and was released.

I don't have any references to his initial processing, however, since they managed to get him through, it seems reasonable to assume that they had a translator on hand for that portion, also. It's irrelevant though, since "BSO G" interacted with him on multiple occasions.

I failed to mention earlier that your claim about him "being detained and held in a strange land by a bunch of folks" is complete nonsense. The guy was processed through the primary inspection line, and directed to go to secondary. Instead he disappeared for 6 hours. When they finally located him again, they processed him through the secondary immigration without any notable incidents. They then escorted him out, and he left the processing area:

00:46 - Mr. DZIEKANSKI exits the secondary area and walks towards the exit in the International Reception Lounge (IRL) of YVR.

Nobody was detaining him at any point in time. He spent 6 hours walking around in circles without trying to ask for assistance. Eventually he was located by airport staff, processed, and released on his own recognizance. It was only afterward that he flipped out and started tossing furniture around the terminal.

Well, I guess I'm just not prepared to agree that the penalty for being an angry foreigner should be death. YMMV.

And I'm not prepared to agree that the penalty for jaywalking should be death, yet people die under such circumstances on a daily basis. Actions have repercussions. Sometimes you do something stupid, and walk away without a problem. Sometimes you do something stupid, and end up in jail. And sometimes you do something stupid and end up in a coffin. That's life. Either way, only one party in this incident was acting belligerent, only one party was breaking the law, and only one party had the option of quickly resolving the incident without a physical altercation. I can't say that he got what he deserved, but what he got is a direct result of his own actions. Trying to find someone else to blame might make you feel warm and fuzzy, but it's pointless, and completely unfair. You may as well blame his mother for telling him to wait in the baggage-carousel area, or blame the limo-driver who let him back in the secure area and called the RCMP. Hell, blame the RCMP for changing their Tazer policies a few months before the incident, or blame the Polish school system for not teaching him English. You can find hundreds of people and institutions to blame, if you really want to, but it won't change the fact that the incident was cause by his own actions.

Two words: NEXUS Card. It makes border crossings quick and painless.

Random on-topic fact of the day, an estimated 75% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the US border.

Every year, my lady and I go up to Canada for the 4th of July weekend to escape the annual (and mostly illegal, under local city codes) fireworks war-zone that infests our neighborhood. We've been doing this for several years, and in fact we both just got our NEXUS cards.

To help put this in context: I'm a ham radio operator, as well as a volunteer first-responder. I've had formal training, through our city's fire department, in disaster relief, emergency medical procedures, basic search-and-rescue, the whole bit.

Because of the above, our minivan is well-equipped for emergencies. I've installed multiple communication radios, a navigation computer, and I carry a medical trauma kit and various safety gear such as flares and a reflective vest. Besides the small antenna farm on the roof, I also have a light bar mounted on the back end (amber, red, clear... same as many tow trucks).

Every bit of it is legal under the road laws of every state except New York (I know, because I spent a couple of long nights going through said laws to make bloody sure!). Couple all that with the fact that I work for our state's police agency (non-commissioned, civil service).

Now, with all the above in mind -- Last year, we're coming back through on Sunday afternoon. I normally have the radios and navigation system on while driving, and this has never, in times past, been an issue.

Not this year. The border guard we drew seemed to be short on both sleep and temper, and rudely ordered me to turn EVERYthing off before he would even talk to us. One of the questions he asked, after that point, was who I worked for. When I told him, he said (snappily) that, for that reason alone, I should understand why he'd told me to turn everything off.

He let us move on at that point, but before I took off I told him, flat out, "No, I don't understand."

And it was the honest truth! If someone's going to try and set off something that goes bang via radio, or other wireless means, it strikes me that they're going to go to considerable effort to keep such activities hidden. They certainly would not do so in a hugely-long border-crossing line, where there was absolutely no way to move anywhere but through the guard posts, in a minivan that stands out like a solar flare and has ham radio callsign plates to boot!

I have no clear idea why this guard was so nasty, or what bizarre purpose his attitude served. I will say that it did indeed strike me as pure theater.

The only thing I can think of is that, perhaps, his sergeant or lieutenant was observing him at the time, and we didn't notice...?

Keep the peace(es).

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention...

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right...

12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment...

etc.

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention...

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right...

12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment...

etc.

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention...

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right...

12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment...

etc.

I contract to the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) and I was the primary developer of the Canadian side of the Nexus program. The US developed there own version.
The thing shared in common is an issued card with an RFID chip. The chip is assoicated with the traveller, not the car. So for those people at the border who want to avoid the lineups, they have signed up, been through the security checks and are being 'tracked' when crossing the border with the RFID chip given to them. It probably doesn't bother them because they can avoid 10 minutes to an hour of waiting time at the border.
From the article it sounds like the US may be trying to expand this to become an 'on-demand' program for those that they feel might be a higher risk. If the technology is similar to what is being used in Nexus then I don't see a big issue. Maybe the people being 'forced' into the program don't like it, but if you want to travel across the border and the government considers you a risk, that is the price you're going to have to pay. As for the government tacking your every move with this RFID, not likely. The range is quite small and you have to pass by the sensors quite close and present the chip or it won't get read.
The ideas of associating the chip with the car doesn't make much sense as has been pointed out by other replys (changing cars, numerous people in the cars and different persons crossing through each time). I guess it depends on how they're going to apply the technology. Maybe they know something about the patterns of vehicle crossings that would signal them to suspicious activity?

that card requires a background check, fingerprint and/or retinal scan, that goes in a huge database indefinitely.

I just wanted to buy gas and groceries. i won't submit to an informational colonoscopy to do that.

Unless they're using old envelope stock (which they don't), it was still Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (or CCRA - ADRC) as of March 8th.

The CCRA was split into two separate agencies on December 12, 2003 -- the Canada Border Services Agency and the Canada Revenue Agency. The CRA is at the old CCRA URL, but they have nothing to do with Customs anymore.

In the past, it was handy to only visit one office to conduct business that dealt with both taxation and customs, even if the office was ostensibly for revenue matters only. Since January, I've been forced to go to two separate places (the CRA occupies the same old CCRA offices, while anything to do with the customs has been moved down to the border stations). Kind of a pain in the ass, but I'm told that it will streamline operations for both agencies and eventually cut down on the bureacracy that citizens have to deal with. In that case, I guess I'm all for it.

D.