So much for Canadian sovereignty.

Uncle Sam could soon be coming after you on Canadian soil.
According to an article in Embassy Magazine, the Harper government is moving forward on several initiatives that could give U.S. FBI and DEA agents the ability to pursue suspects across the land border and into Canada.

RCMP ?to ease Canadians into the idea? of U.S. agents in Canada | Canada Politics - Yahoo! News Canada (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/rcmp-ease-canadians-idea-u-agents-canada-201905380.html)

So much for Canadian sovereignty.



RCMP ?to ease Canadians into the idea? of U.S. agents in Canada | Canada Politics - Yahoo! News Canada (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/rcmp-ease-canadians-idea-u-agents-canada-201905380.html)

Wonder if they will be met at the border by Sheriff Bud Boomer, Sheriff of Niagara County???

Seriously, this does negatively impact Canadian sovereignty. :mad:

.

:mad: :confused:

Seriously stupid. Every move that Harper makes seems to undermine Canada and Canadians. They are working hard to have an NDP majority government voted in next election.

My first thought was about arctic sovereignty ......... and how the US would love to claim ownership of our far north.

this is nothing new.. if you remember a few years back a police pursuit ended in Niagara falls,ON with a US officer shooting and chasing a suspect over the border by car and made the arrest on our side.

this is nothing new.. if you remember a few years back a police pursuit ended in Niagara falls,ON with a US officer shooting and chasing a suspect over the border by car and made the arrest on our side.

I was thinking the same thing. There are all manner of treaties allowing cross-border arrests.

This just isn't right! Criminals should be able to get away when being chased by police because they crossed an invisible line in the water or land. Outrageous.

Another cost saving measure by the Harper government, have the Americans do our policing for us. lol

Kidding!

Don't know any of the details , but allowing ...let's say, DEA boats and planes to enter our waters/airspace in pursuit of criminals is something I wouldn't have too big an issue with, provided it doesn't go beyond that and Canadians authorities are notified and brought in.
If Canada and the US can cooperate in SAR operations I see no reason we can't cooperate in law enforcement, but on a case by case basis. I'm not in favour of a carte blanche agreement.

Tear-assing around within Canada would require the US officer/agent to be in a liaison position. Which I think is the way things are done currently.

Canada is an INTERPOL member and this sort of thing has been agreed to under INTERPOL guidelines for decades. Likewise, the Protocol On Foreign Criminal Investigators In Canada already establishes the guidelines for cross-border investigation.

Another cost saving measure by the Harper government, have the Americans do our policing for us. lol

Kidding!

Don't know any of the details , but allowing ...let's say, DEA boats and planes to enter our waters/airspace in pursuit of criminals is something I wouldn't have too big an issue with, provided it doesn't go beyond that and Canadians authorities are notified and brought in.
If Canada and the US can cooperate in SAR operations I see no reason we can't cooperate in law enforcement, but on a case by case basis. I'm not in favour of a carte blanche agreement.

Tear-assing around within Canada would require the US officer/agent to be in a liaison position. Which I think is the way things are done currently.

It seems it would be a reciprocal arrangement so I would expect that notification to either country's authorities would be part of the plan.

.

Do you think the Americans would put up with a Canuck Cop going into the USA in the same manner after a suspect shooting at him?

Yes.

Yes.

No way. I'd be surprised if the Canadian cop wasn't shot by an American cop.

See the Harper fans see no issues here. Wonder just how much Canadian sovereignty will be flushed before they wake up.

If it's evil when the other guy's guy does it then it's still evil when the Harper crew does it.

.

It isn't that there is "no issue." It's that the protocols--and the reality of such enforcement--have already existed for decades.

It isn't that there is "no issue." It's that the protocols--and the reality of such enforcement--have already existed for decades.

If nothing is changing here, then why are the RCMP in the article quoted as saying
We recognized early that this approach would raise concerns about sovereignty, of privacy, and civil liberties of Canadians.
and that they're going to take "baby steps," presumably so that Canadians don't notice the slow erosion of our sovereignty and civil liberties.

I don't doubt that Harper would love to have US drones patrolling Canadian air space, but I certainly don't like the idea.

If nothing is changing here, then why are the RCMP in the article quoted as saying...

bryanc, I honestly have no idea. The INTERPOL protocols governing this sort of thing have been in place for a half-century.

bryanc, I honestly have no idea. The INTERPOL protocols governing this sort of thing have been in place for a half-century.

I suspect (but admittedly don't know) that the changes the Harper administration are trying to implement are far more sweeping and will facilitate a dramatic decrease in the control the Canadian government has over the actions of US law enforcement agents acting in Canada. This may (or may not) have the up-side of catching a few more bad guys. But it will almost certainly erode Canada's sovereignty and infringe on the civil liberties of our citizens. Of course, Harper has always been a fan of American-style police states, but I don't think that's representative of the desires of most Canadians.

This is different than Interpol. Interpol agents do not make arrests on their own, only with co-operation with local law enforcement.

Interpol is about co-operation between international police agencies. This seems to be more about giving US agents the ability to enforce US laws on Canadian soil/waters.

I don't see how anyone can say that doesn't threaten our sovereignty.

This is different than Interpol. Interpol agents do not make arrests on their own, only with co-operation with local law enforcement.

Interpol is about co-operation between international police agencies. This seems to be more about giving US agents the ability to enforce US laws on Canadian soil/waters.

I don't see how anyone can say that doesn't threaten our sovereignty.

It is a matter of reciprocity. If they can do it, then we can do it. As in any game the rules are fair if they apply equally.

Some of the posters here would not have suffered the development of the EU very well...

What is being proposed here is that the responsibility for the policing of the longest continuous land border in the world will be shared equally and both nations with jurisdiction when a suspected criminal crosses either a land or water border and being pursued by either nations police forces at the time.

Seems quite reasonable to me.

.

A few decades ago there were those that ran away from the USA to avoid being drafted into the Vietnam war. I was in an incident where US law enforcement came hundreds of miles across the border and tried to arrest and apprehend Americans living in Canada for safe haven. More like kidnapping.

The US agents were overpowered and held at gunpoint until the RCMP showed up to take them away. They were sent back to the USA and were told never to come across the border to Canada for any reason ever.

With the changes being proposed, would Americans that live in Canada today, who never did anything wrong but had to flee, still be safe here?

An interesting case, MB. Not sure why they thought that they could come into Canada and take away an American citizen.

.

bounty hunters aren't US law officials, but your previous point about US draft dodgers raises an excellent point. What if that scenario happened a year from now under the proposed changes? I'd hate for Canada to be a willing party to such a scene.

.

bounty hunters aren't US law officials, but your previous point about US draft dodgers raises an excellent point. What if that scenario happened a year from now under the proposed changes? I'd hate for Canada to be a willing party to such a scene.

Were they draft dodgers or deserters, MCB doesn't really say. Different times back then anyway. Under the current volunteer army, any one running to Canada would be a deserter.

As in any game the rules are fair if they apply equally.

for certain definitions of the word 'fair.' If we made a with rules like soccer, but the feild was under a ceiling that was 5 feet off the ground, that would be "fair" but short people would have a very significant advantage.

Indeed, I think it's reasonable to say that the history of legislation has been primarily a history of trying to rig the rules to favour certain groups and activities. What we have to decide as a civilization is what groups and activities we want to favour. The past century has been about tilting the feild to favour corporations and their profits, I think it's time we levelled the feild, not because I hate corporations or want to see the profit motive go away, but because I think those entities have so much money and power now that they can and will take care of themselves just fine, so the powers of government should be focused on taking care of those without so much power and money.

If you believe the role of government is to "look after you" that makes sense. Many of us don't have that view.

If you believe the role of government is to "look after you" that makes sense. Many of us don't have that view.

I believe some of the values of civilized society, and by extension government, are to prevent unnecessary suffering, maximize opportunity for creative and productive development, and minimize the constraints on individual freedom. As such, when it is clear there are systematic barriers or advantages accruing to identifiable groups within society, it is incumbent on us to consider modifications to the rules governing our interactions that may mitigate these disparities. This is can generally be described as "looking after" the interests of the disenfranchised, or "regulating" the behaviour of the powerful agents in society. So yes, that is part of what we have governments for.

I believe some of the values of civilized society, and by extension government, are to prevent unnecessary suffering, maximize opportunity for creative and productive development, and minimize the constraints on individual freedom.

I find the biggest constraints on my freedom are caused by governments futilely attempting to alleviate suffering. I find that my opportunities are most greatly minimized by governments selectively attempting to maximize the benefits of others. Your approach shrinks the pie in order to benefit a select few.

.

.

Americans do not respect the sovereignty of other nations. They didn't respect or cooperate with the country that Bin Laden was hiding in. Unannounced, they sent in the special forces. Bin Laden and others in his residence could have been taken alive, maybe he was. Governments often lie to us.

Both American and Canadian citizens have been illegally kidnapped and taken back to the USA by bounty hunters and US Law enforcement. Those people are in Canada legally. The legal channels have no reason for Canada to send them to the USA. They should have been safe in Canada.

Quaid is not a draft dodger or army deserter. Neither was the Canadian that was kidnapped and taken across the border. The proposed new rules will make it worse. There are Americans living in Canada that are very afraid of their government who never want to go back.

Were you expecting a press release from Delta Team 6 prior to Bin Laden's assassination? I'm sure the Mosad sent one out prior to taking out Gerald Bull, same for the KGB and NKVD and their victims.

If what you say is true and the Americans do not honour our sovereignty, then those fearful Americans living in Canada would be long gone and back in the good 'ol US of A.

for certain definitions of the word 'fair.' If we made a with rules like soccer, but the feild was under a ceiling that was 5 feet off the ground, that would be "fair" but short people would have a very significant advantage.

Indeed, I think it's reasonable to say that the history of legislation has been primarily a history of trying to rig the rules to favour certain groups and activities. What we have to decide as a civilization is what groups and activities we want to favour. The past century has been about tilting the feild to favour corporations and their profits, I think it's time we levelled the feild, not because I hate corporations or want to see the profit motive go away, but because I think those entities have so much money and power now that they can and will take care of themselves just fine, so the powers of government should be focused on taking care of those without so much power and money.

Just a little of topic isn't it bryanc....

Your post has nothing to do with the subject of the thread and your example is just a tad ridiculous.

This is about reciprocal policing powers of a shared border... I think you are looking for the Occupy Movement thread...

A few decades ago there were those that ran away from the USA to avoid being drafted into the Vietnam war. I was in an incident where US law enforcement came hundreds of miles across the border and tried to arrest and apprehend Americans living in Canada for safe haven. More like kidnapping.

The US agents were overpowered and held at gunpoint until the RCMP showed up to take them away. They were sent back to the USA and were told never to come across the border to Canada for any reason ever.

With the changes being proposed, would Americans that live in Canada today, who never did anything wrong but had to flee, still be safe here?

bounty hunters aren't US law officials, but your previous point about US draft dodgers raises an excellent point. What if that scenario happened a year from now under the proposed changes? I'd hate for Canada to be a willing party to such a scene.

The devil will be in the details of the agreement. It would make sense to me that they could only pursue a suspect across the border for being in violation of a law that would be in existence on both sides of the border.

Also I don't no how many draft dodgers had police chasing them across the border when they came to Canada, but I suspect very few.

.

Of course not.



They were paranoid before they got here and probably always will be. It happens once in a while, not every day. Enough to keep the paranoid ex-pat nervous.

Anyone who is paranoid is going to be nervous of just about everything... seems to be particularly prevalent among conspiracy theorists.... it is part and parcel of being paranoid, ex-pat or not.

A few decades ago there were those that ran away from the USA to avoid being drafted into the Vietnam war. I was in an incident where US law enforcement came hundreds of miles across the border and tried to arrest and apprehend Americans living in Canada for safe haven. More like kidnapping.

The US agents were overpowered and held at gunpoint until the RCMP showed up to take them away. They were sent back to the USA and were told never to come across the border to Canada for any reason ever.

With the changes being proposed, would Americans that live in Canada today, who never did anything wrong but had to flee, still be safe here?


More than relevant as a growing number of Americans are choosing to renounce their citizenship rather than deal with the ever expanding number of IRS catch 22 forms. Also a lot of non-Americans are similarly trying to disengage from the IRS tentacles. As all of these various forms include criminal penalties as well as Draconian fines it could be that well over a million Canadian residents and citizens will be at risk, even though most of them do not owe the world's biggest terrorist organization, the IRS, a dime in taxes.

.