March 30, 2009

Obama Administration cracking down on the border ... the Canadian border

From the Toronto Globe & Mail:
Janet Napolitano has a message for Canadians: It's a border. Get used to it.

The new Homeland Security Secretary had only stern comments yesterday about the state and future of the Canada-U.S. border, at a symposium hosted by the Brookings Institution. ...

“It's a real border, and we need to address it as a real border,” Ms. Napolitano said, calling on both Americans and Canadians to accept this “change of culture.”

That culture changes most emphatically June 1, when the United States will require anyone entering from Canada to produce a passport or its equivalent. ...

Roberta Jacobson, who is Deputy Assistant Secretary for Canada, Mexico and NAFTA at the State Department, said that Canada and the United States should talk about border issues without involving Mexico, the third member of the North American Free Trade Agreement partnership.

“This is one where we ought to start with Canada,” she said. This has long been the wish of Canadian officials, who believe that bringing Mexico into border discussions prevents agreements in areas where Canada and the United States could work co-operatively.

But Ms. Napolitano doused that idea as well, reminding the gathering that “one of the things that we need to be sensitive to is the very real feelings among southern border states and in Mexico that if things are being done on the Mexican border, they should also be done on the Canadian border.”

It seemed to be another lesson learned: when it comes to national security, the Obama administration's policies are often consonant with its Republican predecessor.


The Obama Administration's goal here is presumably to build a coalition against enforcement on the Mexican border by annoying Congressmen on the Canadian border. When they complain, the Obama Administration will say, "Obviously, being tougher on the Mexican border than the Canadian border would be racist. You don't want to be racist, do you? So, you must join us in voting for making both borders laxer." And the far northern Congressmen will figure, "Hell, it will be at least a generation before illegal immigrants overrun my frigid district, so it's no skin off my nose to go along with Obama and Napalitano. Too bad about the bottom two-thirds of the country, but that's not my problem."

My published articles are archived at -- Steve Sailer


Anonymous said...

A joke for sure. The only problem is that they are serious.

Anonymous said...

The idea that somehow blue-eyes are symptomatic of a greedy-grasping nature is a new one on me.
In Germany, and i presume the rest of central europe, the term 'blue-eyed innocent' was in vogue.Traditionally, it was believed that blue-eyes were associated with a warm,naive, mild and trusting nature, whilst dark eyes - the natural pregotative of Asiatic types were held to be associated with ruthlessness and guile.
I don't know if Lula is aware of this and his rantings are a deliberate inversion or projection.

Anonymous said...

Too bad about the bottom two-thirds of the country, but that's not my problem."

And that's how they have behaved for the last 100 years. However, it will come back to bite them in the ass in the future. Michigan supported the Civil Rights movement in the mid to late 1960's under governor Romney and now all of its central cities in Flint, Detroit and other minor towns have been reduced to ashes, along with its economy. Massachusetts was the epicenter of the damn movement, has seen its industrial base disappear, its morality ruined since 1960, its priests shamed in front of the whole world, and its state is now beginning the long decline due to immigration that it has inflicted on other states.

Of course, once the large, harmful trends unleashed by these idiots comes home to roost, they still vote for continuing it. Michigan voted for Obama in 2008, despite having a major part of their population replaced by Arabs, and their cities ruined by homicidal Blacks, the Whites there still couldn't vote for McCain.

Varangian said...

Interesting quote a few posts back:

"The Schiffs, notorious Canadians, funded the Bolsheviks. Most of the top staff of the KGB were Canadians."

You could figure the Bronfmans into this contemporarily.

Yep, let's see if they use Homeland Security to keep out those types of 'Canadians' indeed!

Anonymous said...

I have made the comment in the past that the problem with bureaucrats is that they like to push around easy targets. Why bust up the Gang stronghold, when you can bust the complaining Citizen for not shoveling his walk? I mean, people could get killed by gangmembers, but John Q Homeowner, what is he gonna do?

It seems americans have a real problem with a porous border, but other than some marijuana from BC, I don't think the Canadian one is the problem....

Anonymous said...

Um- a special forces guy told me what really scared him was Muslim terrorists passing through Canada.

Maybe Napolitano is using PC blather to cover for cracking down on, say, Pakistani-Canadians mad at us for bombing Pakistan?

Anonymous said...

It wouldn’t be fair to discriminate between Canadian hockey players and shoppers on the Northern border and Mexican drug cartel gangs armed to the teeth on the Southern border. I mean, there really isn’t much difference between hockey players with sticks and snow bird Canadians with loonies to spend and Mexican illegals with drug money.

Anonymous said...

That's fine with me. Why don't we build a fence along the Canadian border while we are building one on the Mexican border? Granted the Canadian fence will keep out hundreds while the Mexican fence will keep out millions.

Anonymous said...

Not that liberals realise this, but Canadians can pose a legitimate threat to the US. That is to say, "new Canadians" can. Regular Canadians are, as a previous poster correctly said, mostly shoppers and tourists, and about as much of a threat as a regular Wisconsinite or North Dakotan. But we give refugee status to damn near everybody, so it's actually fairly easy for somebody to get into Canada. Racial profiling would actually be way better at terrorist control than just looking at passports.

Varangian said...

Strange all of a sudden they want to emphasize any border controls?

Considering they want to virtually ELIMINATE borders with their desired, long-term NAU/FTAA - NAFTA Superhighway goal.

Maybe this is all part of the Dialectic.