Canada unhappy with U.S. passenger list proposal

Post Reply New Topic

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050601/wl_canada_nm/canada_security_canada_usa_col
I find it hard to believe the US has overlooked this for so long. I mean, Canada lets just about anybody move there and there have been a number of terrorists that have tried to get into the US that way and these people can be allowed to fly through US airspace without being checked against the no-fly list? What a perfect opportunity for them to hijack a plane and crash it into something in the US.

Sean,

No matter what the US says, Canada does not have to follow any of the US rules. Canada is a soveign entity who can make up their own rules and can thumb its nose to the US whenever it wants. Canada makes up its own policies seperate from the US. End of question.

The US can restrict trade/tourism but because Canada is our largest trading partner, it would disrupt the economy so bad the more likely than not, any sactions we place on Canada would do more harm to the US than good.

Well, what would do some harm to the USA would reduce Canada to Third World economic status. The USA is pressuring Canada to tighten up its refugee laws, something that the more level-headed Canadians whom I often talk with (on line) fully agree with doing. It's too bad that the ultra-lefties in southern Ontario seem to be the ones running the Federal Parliamentary show these days.

A couple of years ago, I was talking with a couple of US Customs guys who agreed that had the 2001-09-11 attacks not occurred, the USA-Canada border checkpoints would have been mostly dismantled by the end of 2002. That could still happen if Canada would embrace the EU-style 'Strong Perimeter' proposal that has been bouncing around since the 1990s - keep the bad guys off of the continent to begin with and we wouldn't have to worry about that line that is artificially drawn across some of the most remote land on the planet (north of Mexico, North America is an island, with only two ways in - by air or by sea, meaning far fewer entry ports to keep watch over). The only real hangup has been and continues to be Canada's open-door policy on refugees. IMHO, that would be a far, far more cost-effective use of border security resources than what we're doing now.

As for those who would whine about the possibility of illegal guns flowing north and decriminalized pot flowing south, I'd think that that would be a good, even tradeoff.

Mike

We cannot keep the Mexican migrants from entering the country let alone the terrorists. If we close off Canada, the terrorists will simply start coming in from Mexico and with their training in remote climates, unlike the migrants, they will survive crossing Arizona in August.

US airspace is soveirgn teritory as well. We could demand three things: get Canada to forward their passenger manifests, take a longer route that does not enter US airspace, or pay the US to provide an F-16 escort while in US airspace.



We would still need to redeploy all customs agents south and to other points of entry and use the National Guard to grrison the Mexican border. The Mexican government would scream about this, but with such close ties to Canada, we wouldn't need them anymore and could threaten to withdraw from that ret*d NAFTA agreement if they don't shut up and take it.


I despise drug use and I would be concerned about the two being used at the same time. Canada would probably have to relax their gun laws and we would have to relax our laws on marjuana, though still allow comanines to fire employees who use it.

I've finally decided to comment on this. I think it's utterly ridiculous.

Can companies fire employees for owning a gun?

Bec,

In the US, the property of the company that you work for is considered private property. As such, the company is allowed to make up rules on what can and cannot be brought onto the property. If you carry a gun onto your employers property, and your employer does not allow it, your employer can terminate your employment.

I do not think however that your employer would know if you owned a gun that was never brought onto their property unless you told them. Even then, what you do on your own time is your own business, not your employers.

This applies to drug use. If someone chooses to smoke marijuana in their own time that is their business and nobody else's - least of all an employer. A paycheck does not give a company a right to dictate what you do out of work, whether it be playing golf *shudder* or having a couple of joints on a weekend... (where public safety is not an issue anyway

Dunc

Thanks for the explanation.

Sean wrote about Canada relaxing their gun laws and the US relaxing its laws about marijuana, but companies should be allowed to fire employees who use it. I'd like to know Sean's stance about employees being fired for owning a gun. That is why I asked the question.



I have the same opinion. I think a company or employer has the right to fire someone if what they do on their own time affects the way they work or if it gives the wrong image to customers. (Example: My dad owns a store. Some of his employees have had facial piercings and when they are working he does not allow their face jewelry.) If it doesn't affect the company (and if it isn't harmful to other people) what someone does on their own time is their own business.

Body piercings and gun ownership is easier set aside while at work than an addiction to mind-altering chemicals.

That is true, but if they don't affect your ability to successfully perform the job then it shouldn't be a problem. If it does, then the employee should be fired.

Someone's drug use becoming a problem can catch their employer by suprise. In a retail setting, the worst thing that is likely to happen is lose customers and have money/assets stolen. In the case of construction workers, truck drivers, heavy equipment operators, engineers, law enforcement, medical, and national security related jobs, drug related problems cost lives. That's where restrictions on drug use become important. On the other hand, the ability of an unemployed stoner to cause a loss of life is less likely and any problems they cause would be easier to handle through the legal system.

I'm going to tackle all those issues in one go (mainly because I'm surfing on a TV and can hardly read the screen):

Airspace: I don't have exact figures, but I'm guessing that less than 100 Canadian commercial aircraft fly over U.S. territory every day without landing (and would therefore be affected by new rules). More than 800 flights pass over Canadian airspace every day between the continental USA and Alaska or Europe. Banning overflights could get messy and VERY expensive if Canada decided to apply the same rules in the other direction. In any case, what's to stop a hijacker from taking control of a commercial jet as it skims along the 49th parallel and then hitting the nearest border city (Seattle, Minniapolis, Detroit, etc.)? These points are all just rhetoric when you consider the fact that the hijackers on 9/11 were all in the USA *legally*. None of them entered the USA via Canada. Last but not least, I would think that terrorists wouldn't want to do the same thing again -- why go after a high-security target when they can find another low-security target?

Guns: When I was in Oklahoma City a few years ago I saw several places where companies had put signs at the parking lot entrance forbidding employees or customers from bringing guns onto the property. I see nothing wrong with that.

Drugs: Should companies fire the guy who guzzles a dozen beer on Friday night? If not, then why fire the guy who smokes marijuana on Friday night? Assuming both are sober (and not hung-over) on Monday and can stay that way during the week, I don't think it's the employer's business. I think the USA would be much more respected if it transferred about 75% of the DEA officers over to ATF.

OK Jetson, would you put your kid on a school bus with a driver that smoked pot? Actually, here in the US, when it comes to commercial vehicle driver, the employer has no choice in the matter when it comes to drug testing. My employer must randomly test its employees who are in safety sensitive positions (this includes mechanics and dispatchers as well as drivers). In fact, I have the same odds of being tested as my boss.

BTW, I am also not allowed to carry a firearm on the bus (I cannot ever carry a knife). Since the bus company is a private employer, I can either follow the rules or find another job. Simple as that.

The employer has the right to decide who they want to work for them. If they decide that they do not want drug users, that is their choice. Now one employer in Michigan is forcing its employees to quit smoking or be out of a job. I am waiting to see where that leads but I think they may get away with it.

In Europe that company would find itself in court quicker than you can say 'cig-break' How disgusting.

i never ceased to be amazed at the fact that i am CONSTANTLY amazed at the lunacy from "across the water". i really should be used to it by now.