Or, “President Obama, build up this wall!”
From Fox News:
Walker said in an interview that aired Sunday that building a wall along the country’s northern border with Canada is a legitimate issue that merits further review.
Republican candidates for president have often taken a get-tough approach on deterring illegal immigration, but they usually focus on the border with Mexico. Walker was asked Sunday morning on NBC’s “Meet the Press” whether he wanted to build a wall on the northern border, too. Walker said some people in New Hampshire have asked the campaign about the topic.
“They raised some very legitimate concerns, including some law enforcement folks that brought that up to me at one of our town hall meetings about a week and a half ago. So that is a legitimate issue for us to look at,” Walker said.
This is an interesting idea. Consider the distance that would need to be fenced in, or otherwise secured. The US-Canada border stretches over 5500 miles. Merely securing the contiguous 48 border with Canada requires putting barriers over 4000 miles.
One estimate places the total cost at $18 billion, using the average cost estimate of $5.1 million/mile. The article cites “a report by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to Congressional committees in 2009, which examined the construction costs of building fences on the Mexican border in 2007 and 2008.” Since the details weren’t presented, it’s hard to tell if that estimate includes costs associated with design and procurement of the land used for the wall. Other estimates of per-mile cost of building are presented in this Congressional Research Service report (pages 16-24). In addition, there is a maintenance issue, so that the present value cost is much higher than the build cost. From the CRS report:
The Corps of Engineers estimated that Sandia fencing costs per mile would range from $785,679 to $872,977 [in constant 1997 dollars] for construction and $953 to $7,628 per mile yearly for maintenance. Additionally, the Corps of Engineers study notes that the Sandia fence would possibly need to be replaced in the fifth year of operation and in every fourth year thereafter if man-made damage to the fence was “severe and ongoing.” For this reason, in the study the Corps of Engineers noted that the net present value of the fence after 25 years of operation, per mile, would range from $11.1 million to $61.6 million.
To convert to 2014 dollars, one can multiply by 1.48 (the 2014 CPI level is 47.5% higher than it was in 1997).
There are two questions that come to me. The first is the cost-effectiveness of building a physical barrier that impedes pedestrians. I suspect that the benefit-cost ratio is very, very low. The second is whether it’s still a bad idea. After all, spending to build something that is useless is akin to Keynes’s example:
“If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing.”
[Book 3, Chapter 10, Section 6 pg.129 “The General Theory..”]
Of course, it would be even better if the spending were on something useful like investment in human capital and the like. However, the Governor seems to have an aversion to such types of expenditures that augment potential output.[1] [2]
The Governor’s original statements were recorded on Sunday. On Tuesday, Governor Walker walked back his comment, as recounted in FoxNews:
“this is just a joke in terms of how people react to things” and claimed he wasn’t talking about a wall.
Given it took a whole day or two for the Governor to determine he was joking, I think we should take the Governor’s Sunday assertion as a true reflection of his views.
On the other hand, I don’t quite have a fix on the Governor’s current views on birthright citizenship; see the evolution of his views tabulated at PolitiFact.
Update, 11:30am Pacific: If you want to see if Governor Walker seems to be joking, see video and transcript here (video, see at 10 min, 38 sec). Exact text:
Todd: “Do you want to build a wall north of the border, too?”
Walker: “Some people have asked us about that in New Hampshire. They raised some very legitimate concerns, including some law enforcement folks that brought that up to me at one of our town hall meetings about a week and a half ago. So that is a legitimate issue for us to look at.
Listening to the audio and visual, I’d say Walker is not denying at all the idea of a wall on the northern border (and sure doesn’t sound like he’s making a joke!).
I’ve long thought that the biggest threat from Canada is the large number of Canadian actors seeking work in the US, e.g., Mike Myers. Perhaps a wall would help with that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_actors_and_actresses
I seriously dislike Walker, and can hardly wait to see him just disappear from the political landscape entirely at all levels, but I have seen a piece that he has been getting into trouble because of a “verbal tic” he has. Apparently he says “Yeah” in front of lots of things he says sort of like “Um,” and the experienced reporters in Wisconsin know this and so discount these “Yeahs.” because he regularly will follow them with something that says “no” quite clearly. They do not mean anything. It would appear that this is what happened in this case. He is being convicted of wanting to build a wall on the Canadian/US border because of one of these meaningless introductory “Yeahs,” which the natonal media has not figured out yet, when indeed what he really meant was he wanted to add more people to enforce the northern border as he later clarified.
As it is, that is still pretty stupid, but not nearly as stupid as building a wall there.
This is a good example of “not ruling it out” syndrome, whereby you both recommend a policy and simultaneously say you might not actually do it.
Closely related to “what-aboutism” syndrome.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/walker-and-the-refusal-to-rule-anything-out/#post-comments
What Walker actually said can show either journalists have a comprehension problem, or they, along with Walker’s competitors, are playing politics.
Walker actually said:
“They raised some very legitimate concerns, including some law enforcement folks that brought that up to me at one of our town hall meetings about a week and a half ago. So that is a legitimate issue for us to look at,” Walker said.
And
“This is just a joke in terms of how people react to things” and claimed he wasn’t talking about a wall.
The main point of his first comment is securing the northern border is a legitimate issue.
His second comment may refer to some journalists and/or political opponents.
His comments were too general to make specific conclusions. After-all, isn’t that what politicians often do? 🙂
Peak Trader: I have posted a link to the video. Watch at 10 min 38 sec, and make your own judgment. I for sure would say (1) he is not ruling out a wall, and believes its a legitimate point of study, and (2) contra his subsequent remarks, he is not making a joke.
Menzie Chinn, starting at 9:24. Todd says you’re making securing the border the top priority, are concerned about terrorists crossing the border, and asks why aren’t you talking about securing the northern border?
Walker says he wants to secure the border in general, but explains the southern border has the most people going through, and says again he wants to secure the entire border.
Then, Todd says why are we only talking about the southern border (after Walker talked about the entire border), and building a “fence’ there, if this about securing the border preventing potential terrorists?
While, Walker began answering his question, Todd quickly added, while he was talking “you want to build a wall in the northern border?.”
Walker didn’t even respond to the question “you want to build a wall in the northern border?,” because he was answering Todd’s prior question.
Peak Trader: That’s how you interpret it. If someone asks me a question, I respond. He did not say no to the wall, which was the immediate query. What is somebody to do but interpret it as I did. And why did it take him two days to correct people and say the wall was a joke? You have not answered that puzzling question (at least puzzling in your interpretation).
Politicians often don’t respond directly to questions. The implication of Todd’s question is if we build a wall on the southern border, why not on the northern border? Walker responded by saying there’s much more traffic on the southern border. Yet, Todd dismissed that and persisted.
Walker had to respond after two days, because people were saying something he didn’t say. Did he even say the word wall? Walker didn’t answer that quick off the cuff last question by Todd, while Walker was answering the prior question. I think, Walker meant some people are a joke in how they react.
Did Keynes ever say his garbage comments were a joke? Is a joke about a wall along the Canadian border really more foolish than burying bottles of banknotes under garbage, or generating economic recovery by having an imaginary war with Martians, or digging holes and then covering them up to reduce unemployment. Or how about the granddaddy of all, sending the unemployed to be killed in war and then claim the wisdom of a World War created economic recovery.
It is hard to imagine anything more foolishly absurd and it is taken as serious economics. Really?!
It was a gotcha question from a left-wing hack. If he says no, he’s a racist because he wants a wall on the Mexican border but not the Canadian border. If he says yes, he’s crazy.
He said neither but acknowledged the security problem. Remember the millennium bomber? Didn’t think so.
Now back to your regular Daily Menz…
W.C. Varones: Chuck Todd is “left-wing hack”? Please confirm that is your assertion, and provide data validating that point.
Menzie,
For your reading pleasure.
“Appearing on NBC’s Today on Sunday, Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd acknowledged that “the optics look terrible” for Hillary Clinton after her campaign roped off the press during a 4th of July parade in New Hampshire, but he added: “Look, I am sympathetic to the campaign’s complaint. She has a large media horde following her around that it makes it hard, because of the media, for her to interact with voters.”
And another.
“On Sunday’s Meet the Press, NBC’s Chuck Todd reacted to his trip to the Iowa State Fair by admitting that he “was stunned at how many — how easily it was to find these Democrats willing” to criticize Hillary Clinton over her e-mail scandal among other issues.”
And one more. I didn’t know how many you wanted. The last paragraph might help you understand why you don’t see Chuck Todd as Progressive.
“Chuck Todd, who hosts Meet the Press on NBC, opened his show the way he often does, by introducing his panel of journalists. There was Luke Russert of NBC News, and Amy Walter of the Cook Political Report, and there was “Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post … and Ken Blackwell, conservative columnist and former Ohio Secretary of State.”
“Did you catch it? Eugene Robinson isn’t the liberal columnist of the Washington Post. He’s simply Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post. But Ken Blackwell is identified as a “conservative columnist.”
“This may strike members of the so-called mainstream media as one of those “what’s the big deal?” issues — even though it happens all the time both on TV and in print. But if they’re feeling generous and concede that maybe it is somehow, some way, some kind of offense, it’s a misdemeanor of the lowest order. Journalistic jaywalking — at worst.
“Liberals, you see, don’t have to be identified. Liberals, as far as liberal journalists like Chuck Todd are concerned, aren’t controversial. They’re middle of the road. Moderate. Mainstream. Not so with conservatives. They need a warning label.”
Ricardo hacked up an unattributed quote as “validation” of WC Varone’s assertion that Chuck Todd is a left-wing hack:
“Did you catch it? Eugene Robinson isn’t the liberal columnist of the Washington Post. He’s simply Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post. But Ken Blackwell is identified as a ‘conservative columnist.’…Liberals, you see, don’t have to be identified. …Not so with conservatives. They need a warning label.”
The supposed “warning label” for Ken Blackwell is the first two words of Blackwell’s self-description on both his twitter page and his Facebook page.
And look at this August 9, 2015 transcript from nbcnews.com, where conservative radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt is identified as…radio talk show host:
And joining me this morning to provide insight and analysis are David Brooks of The New York Times, Heather McGhee of Demos, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, and radio talk show host, Hugh Hewitt. Welcome to Sunday, it’s Meet the Press.
Or look at the August 16, 2015 transcript, where liberal columnist Eugene Robinson gets no “warning label” again. Horrors! But, neither does conservative columnist Kimberley Strassel. Both are identified simply by their media affiliation.
Joining me for insight and analysis this morning are Jeff Greenfield, contributor to The Daily Beast, Molly Ball of The Atlantic, Kimberley Strassel of The Wall Street Journal, and Eugene Robinson, of The Washington Post.
Very impressive validation, there, Ricardo. You earned your usual slow clap.
There is absolutely no evidence that there are terrorists residing in Canada who could easily enter the U.S. Even Canadian officials resoundingly repudiate such thinking. This from the U.S. Public Broadcasting Service:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/trail/etc/canada.html
Language Log debunked this interpretation of Walker’s comments pretty decisively: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=21021.
Thanks for that. I wonder if we need a better press corp, as Brad often claims, or a more enlightened electorate that would punish the press for artificially creating such sensational hogwash.
don: I think the press actually did catch the actual gist of the remarks. Go watch the video, starting at 10 min 38 sec. To me, he is allowing for study of a wall. And if his point was mis-interpreted, why’d it take a day or two days to “correct” the reporting.
Philip W: Go watch the video, starting at 10 min 38 sec, and make up your own mind. Governor Walker talks immediately after Chuck Todd’s query about a wall. At the very least, he does not dismiss a wall.
It is not Manitoba that concerns these people but Quebec. After all, French Canadians are the Hispanics of the north.
I listened, and I have to say that those who say that he said “Yeah” at the crucial moment are wrong. He said “Well.” As it is, it certainly sounds like he was allowing for the possibility of a wall, although he did not say so specifically.
There is already a fence between the U.S. and Canada as you can see in this picture.
Walker wants a wall across Canada. Chris Christie wants to bar code Canadians crossing the border so he can track them like Fedex packages.
The crazy is strong in this bunch. Everyone is trying to out-Trump Trump.
Also note the rope swing in the picture which I suspect is a device for launching anchor babies into the U.S.
This reminds me that you can order poutine at the downtown Great Dane. Maybe Walker is actually concerned with trade? Keep the Quebecois from competing with local business.
How about a wall to keep the black flies and mosquitoes out? That is the real menace to be found in Manitoba.
Apparently these terrorist insects have an opinion on contemporary US-sponsored ethnic cleansing and the potential for ruinous blow back.
What about wildlife? There are large animals that probably cross the border.
NIce example of the fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantiam (the absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence);
‘ Governor Walker talks immediately after Chuck Todd’s query about a wall. At the very least, he does not dismiss a wall. ‘
Btw, Menzie, do you think that Barack Obama still believes that ‘profits eat up overhead’? Or that it’s smart to buy collision insurance on a $1,300 beater car?
Patrick R. Sullivan: I am glad you have joined me in critiquing the entire empirical literature on testing for efficient markets in equity markets. I await your exegesis on why Fama’s Nobel prize should be withdrawn.
I am still waiting to hear you admit you were in error regarding depth of the downturn in Canada vs. US during the Great Depression. As you recall, you stated unequivocally:
And this statement is wrong.
To which, Menzie has just added ignoratio elenchi.
Patrick R. Sullivan: Gee, if I make so many irrelevant conclusions, why do you come here? Is it merely to spread mis-information?
(Your answer makes me suspect you don’t understand my point about the EMH…)
In that regard, I am still waiting to hear you admit you were in error regarding depth of the downturn in Canada vs. US during the Great Depression. As you recall, you stated unequivocally:
And this statement is wrong.
After you build fences you get tunnels. Securing against tunnels is extremely expensive if not impossible. Ask Israel who has a very small border yet have people poping out of holes all the time. The idea of fences is for morons who cannot think.
This post illustrates once again the deeply ingrained false view of the Left that conservatives are stupid. If a progressive had said such a thing, his fellow progressives would have given him the benefit of the doubt, refusing to believe that he could be so foolish as to be literally proposing to build a wall on the Canadian border. Conservatives of course know that Walker is not stupid and that he intended no such thing. He merely fell into the trap of a progressive journalist who was trying to ensnare him in a “gotcha” quote. Of course Walker doesn’t believe that you can build a wall on the Canadian border.
What Walker was really talking about was conservatives’ concerns about terrorists being able to easily cross into the US from Canada. In James Okeefe’s amusing video, he shows how one of his colleagues, dressed in full ISIS terrorist garb, can rent a boat or jet ski in Canada, cross Lake Erie completely unmolested, and then walk into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland carrying a suspicious bag and not be stopped by anyone. Okeefe also points out that many British citizens have joined Isis and that their British passports easily allow them to enter Canada.
Progressives can’t see that that’s what Walker is talking about because they are so clouded by their belief that Walker must be stupid. And progressives can’t see the intellectual limitations of their own leaders. Here are a couple of examples for them to consider.
One almost Democratic front runner wrote an essay called Man and Woman. You can dismiss this essay as being over 40 years old but the man who wrote it was 30 years old at the time. How can you write an essay like this and be an intelligent person? If you are 15 at the time, I could understand it. But 30 years old?
Or consider the benighted Democratic front runner. Her staffer who set up her email server is planning to take the fifth and rightly so. If she weren’t the Democratic front runner and her fellow progressives didn’t control the executive branch, she’d already be indicted. But that’s not the real story. The real story is what’s not in the emails that she didn’t erase. I’ve spent some time reading them as have a lot of people. What jumps out at you is how vapid they are. You expect to see serious discussion and debate about foreign policy issues. But instead you see the candidate’s sycophantic advisers working on the only thing that matters to the candidate: her own political career. The real scandal in the emails is not that they contain classified information (although that is a scandal) but rather the scandal is what the emails don’t contain: any evidence of knowledge, gravitas, or leadership on the part of the Democratic frontrunner.
Compared to these two, Scott Walker is a towering genius.
Rick Stryker: I do not believe I have ever stated that I believed that Governor Walker is stupid. If I have, please send me the specific URL that quotes me as making that assertion.
Menzie,
The point of my comment is that you are implicitly making the assumption that Walker is stupid by insisting that he really meant that we should build a wall on the Canadian border. Walker knew perfectly well that Chuck Todd was trying to trap him in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” quote. He didn’t want to say directly that you wouldn’t build a wall because he’s worried about potentially alienating voters who are supporting the Donald. But on the other hand he didn’t want to say that we should build a wall. Walker attempted to finesse it by bringing up some legitimate security concerns and then finished with “so “that” is a legitimate issue for us to look at,” leaving ambiguous whether “that” is referring to the wall or to security concerns.
It’s a shame that Walker doesn’t have the political skill of Bill Clinton, who would have done a much better job evading the question.
“Conservatives of course know that Walker is not stupid and that he intended no such thing.”
wrong. conservatives believe that to be the case. that does not make it true. they also believe in the reagan miracle. evidence does not support that belief either. however, i would be in agreement that walker is probably not stupid. but that does not mean that he is smart.
Baffles,
That’s progress I suppose. Walker is “probably” not stupid in your mind.
Can a Republican actually be smart or is intelligence and conservatism incompatible in your view?
Rick Stryker: I actually believe that (1) Governor Walker knows what he’s doing, and (2) is quite adept at furthering his particular friends’ agenda. So, no, intelligence and being a conservative are not incompatible at all.
as i said rick, walker is probably not stupid. that would require a very high level of incompetence, and i do not believe he is that incompetent. i do believe he is probably deceitful and conniving. not sure if he is smart enough to pull that off, however. i guess we shall see as the election season unfolds.
Republicans say many stupid things. Now, whether they are actually stupid or just cleverly pandering to bigots in order to get elected can be difficult to distinguish and you can’t blame the observer for the confusion. Stupid or just pretending to be stupid?
Rick Stryker: “James O’Keefe …
Now, see, there you go confusing us again. Are you stupid or just pretending to be stupid.
I love the way progressives think that they just have to say “Jame Okeefe” and it’s Q.E.D. No argument necessary. No facts, nothing.
If you watch that video, Okeefe shows how easy it would be for a terrorist to come in from Canada. Is he wrong?
Rick Stryker: “Bernie Sanders …”
It’s quite amusing that Rick has to reach back 40 years to find something stupid that a progressive says. To find something stupid a Republican says you just have to turn on Fox News and wait three minutes.
Joseph,
You missed the point, as usual. If you want to really get a sense of whether people have any substance, look at what they write. Not what handlers and speech writers give them to say in writing, but what they do say in writing. Sanders’ essay and Hillary’s emails show how empty they are.
Forgive me, a wall is a legitimate issue look at. (A $15 minimum wage is also a policy one could look at, even if it is incredibly stupid.)
If you’ve ever crossed the border into Canada, you know that border control exists primarily to harass law-abiding citizens. You can kayak or sail across Lake Ontario without anyone challenging you. (I have done it.)
Now, having looked at the Canada wall concept, one is likely to conclude that it is impractical, both due to its length and geographic features (ie, Great Lakes, Rockies). You can then stay with the status quo, which I think is incredibly stupid and not particularly effective. Or you can coordinate more closely with the Canadians and create a North American Schengen Zone, which would be a priority if I were president. But that involves some pretty close cooperation with the Canadians on many fronts, and it involves accepting some compromises. For me, the only defensible borders with Canada are the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic Oceans. If a terrorist is in Canada, it is very difficult to prevent him from entering the US, if he has an ounce of brains.
How absolutely apt! A master tearer-downer, like all regressives. To be followed in the highest office by a master-builder!
JBH: “tearer-downer”?
I think it would be fine if we just kept the “quality” Canadians and shipped the rest of them back home. Also, we should also mine the center of Lake Ontario to make sure our borders are secure. We wouldn’t want an influx of foreigners like they’re having in Greece and Hungary.
Rick Stryker: “If you watch that video, Okeefe shows how easy it would be for a terrorist to come in from Canada. Is he wrong?”
Ha, that’s a video for stupid people who have never actually seen the Canadian border. As I showed above it is more like thousands of miles of this. You don’t need a stupid boat. Any four-year-old chasing a ball can just walk across the border.
The border between the U.S. and Canada is the longest unmilitarized border in the world and has been that way for over 200 years. It would be nice to keep it that way with our friends to the North.
Why is it that conservatives act like a nervous poodle that rolls on its back and wets itself every time it hears a loud noise? There is literally no indigity they won’t willingly suffer to protect themselves from the boogie man. I’m sure that Osama bin Laden laughs in his watery grave every time someone walks around an airport in their stocking feet, clutching at their belt-less pants.
Joseph,
How amusingly ignorant you are! On the contrary, that photo you posted is for stupid people who have never seen the Canadian border. So, the Canadian border looks like thousands of miles of that photo, eh? Obviously, you don’t now the geography of Tsawwassen, BC, which is depicted in your photo. Tsawwassen juts out from Canada on a peninsula. Because the southernmost tip of the peninsula is below the 49th Parallel, that part of the peninsula below the 49th Parallel is technically in the US and is a place called Point Roberts. Tsawwassen and Point Roberts border each other on the peninsula. If you did cross illegally into Point Roberts without the border patrol stopping you, you would not be in the continental US, but would be surrounded by water. If you want to get to the continental US from Point Roberts, you could go by land by crossing back into Canada and then driving around north and east and then coming down to cross into Washington State. Otherwise, you could cross to the continental US from Point Roberts by sea or air by traversing Boundary Bay.
No, Joseph, what’s depicted in your picture is nothing like the Canadian-US border. In reality, the border is about 5500 miles long and is very diverse, comprised of dense forests, mountains, rivers, lakes, and open plains, along with some major metropolitan centers. You seem to think that anyone can just walk across this border, much like “a four year old chasing a ball,” as you put it but it may interest you to know that the Northern border is heavily guarded by the Department of Homeland Security. Since 2001, the number of border patrol agents assigned to the Northern border has increased from several hundred to more than 2000. Homeland Security also employs thermal cameras, mobile surveillance, remote video surveillance, and drones.
Despite all this effort, James O’Keefe showed in his video that it’s possible to thwart the surveillance by doing something simple and straightforward like taking a jet ski across Lake Erie.
Joseph, like most progressives you consistently get your facts wrong, but I must say this case is one for the record books. Where do you get this stuff?
As you say, there are 5500 miles of border with forest, mountains, rivers, lakes and open plains. The idea that people are terrified that someone in a boat can cross unchecked is a joke on the uninformed. You don’t need a boat — you just walk across. In fact, I’ve crossed between Alaska and Canada many times without checks. It happens routinely and nobody panics about it. Technically you are supposed to check into the U.S. before you leave. You go to a convenient U.S. exit point and tell them you will be returning to the U.S. in a week or two, somewhere off road. And then you just walk back into the U.S. unchecked any place you like off road, perfectly legally. Anybody could do it, checked or not. There are thousands of miles of undefended Canadian border like that where anyone can walk across whether you realize it or not.
OKeefe is entertainment for dim people who are easily terrified by anything the xenophobic bigots in the Republican Party can dream up. That you would cheerfully cite OKeefe tells us a lot about you.
Joseph,
You are now making Walker’s and O’keefe’s point–it’s still too easy to enter the U.S. illegally from Canada. But you are still wrong on your facts when you say that you can do this “perfectly legally.”
The U.S. Border patrol attempts to seriously watch the border and prevent illegal crossings. As they say on their website:
“The Border Patrol is specifically responsible for patrolling the 6,000 miles of Mexican and Canadian international land borders and 2,000 miles of coastal waters surrounding the Florida Peninsula and the island of Puerto Rico. Agents work around the clock on assignments, in all types of terrain and weather conditions. Agents also work in many isolated communities throughout the U.S.”
“One of the most important activities of a Border Patrol agent is line watch. This involves the detection, prevention and apprehension of terrorists, undocumented aliens and smugglers of aliens at or near the land border by maintaining surveillance from a covert position, following up leads, responding to electronic sensor television systems, aircraft sightings, and interpreting and following tracks, marks and other physical evidence.”
Intentionally crossing the border while evading lawful inspection is a crime and you can get a $5000 penalty as two people did in 2014 who attempted to cross illegally into the US from Canada. If you do this, are caught, and are not a US citizen, you can get the fine and be deported.
“But you are still wrong on your facts when you say that you can do this “perfectly legally.” “
Well, the fact is, I have walked into the U.S. across the border without checking in many times, perfectly legally. When I exit the U.S., I tell U.S Customs I will be walking back into the U.S. a week later through some non-checkpoint area. And they say “fine, have a nice time in Canada.” A week later I walk back into the U.S., no checkpoint, no passport, no nothing. It would be just as easy for a platoon of Canadian ninjas and their anchor babies to walk in right behind me.
The idea that you are going to make yourself safer with a wall across Canada is just nonsense. People have been going back and forth for decades with no problem.
You are making Walker’s and O’keefe’s point for them if you are claiming that it is still relatively easy for people to just walk into the US from Canada. In the past (pre-911 especially), it was very easy to do and enforcement of border security at national parks was very lax. But the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has worked to correct that. The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative is a State Department and DHS initiative to implement a 9/11 Commission recommendation as well as comply with the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. It requires everyone, US and non-US citizens to present suitable identification when travelling to the US in any capacity.
Full compliance with the WHTI was supposed to happen by June 1, 2009. Now, if you hike on the Chilkoot Trail for example, and walk between the US and Canada, you have documentation and reporting requirements. If you are going from the US to Canada, you must register at the trail center and present documentation such as a passport, enhanced drivers license, or Trusted Traveler Program card. If you are coming back to the US from Canada, regardless of where you come in, you have to register with Parks Canada and then report to US customs at Skagway. If you don’t do that, you’ve made an illegal border crossing.
Are you claiming that you’ve recently experienced lax documentation and reporting requirements in Alaska despite the implementation of the WHTI? If so, then I would repeat that Walker has a point about border security, which is what he was really talking about–he was not talking about building a wall.
Joseph,
You said
“Well, the fact is, I have walked into the U.S. across the border without checking in many times, perfectly legally. When I exit the U.S., I tell U.S Customs I will be walking back into the U.S. a week later through some non-checkpoint area. And they say “fine, have a nice time in Canada.” A week later I walk back into the U.S., no checkpoint, no passport, no nothing.”
I want to emphasize yet again that you are wrong on the facts. If you have indeed been doing what you say above, and have been doing it recently, then you are subjecting yourself to some fairly serious legal penalties. Take a look at the letter the Border Patrol sent to the Pacific Crest Trail Association in 2010. The letter warns the association of the laws that must be complied with by hikers as the cross back and forth from the US and Canada. The letter cites the specific statutes and makes clear that hikers must cross into the US at a border crossing point and present themselves for inspection. Failure to do so can subject you to a criminal penalty of up to 1 year in jail and a fine of $5000 for the first offense and $10,000 for each subsequent offense. Of course, although not stated by the letter, it is also necessary to have WHTI-compliant identification documents. Even if someone did tell you to “have a nice time” and imply that you can come and go as you please, that does not free you from complying with the relevant statutes.
You also said:
“OKeefe is entertainment for dim people who are easily terrified by anything the xenophobic bigots in the Republican Party can dream up. That you would cheerfully cite OKeefe tells us a lot about you.”
Again, you say that because you don’t have a clue about what the actual facts are, which tells us a lot about you. As I’ve made abundantly clear, there has been a substantial effort to secure the Northern border. The number of border patrol agents has been increased dramatically and lots of new surveillance technology has been employed. WHTI has been fully implemented and the border patrol is enforcing the laws for hikers and others. Given all that, it’s often assumed that the Northern border is much more secure. That’s the context of O’keefes video, a context you don’t understand because you don’t know the facts.
What O’keefe showed is that despite all this effort on the part of the Federal Government, it’s relatively easy for a guy dressed in full ISIS garb to hop on a boat in Canada and go right into Cleveland with a suspicious looking bag. If O’keefe were a member of the mainstream media and was attacking the usual targets the mainstream media likes to attack (business, Republicans, etc), he would have already won a Pulitzer Prize for the clever and effective bits of journalism he’s done.
” Given all that, it’s often assumed that the Northern border is much more secure. ”
i do not think it is often assumed the northern border is much more secure. the challenges facing the southern border are similar to the challenges facing the northern border. they probably have the same level of security. neither of the borders will be able to resist a determined person wanting to cross the border. enforcing points of entry is mainly a burden on those with legal egress. both borders will always be rather porous to those willing to cross at interior locations.
okeefe puts up a lot of effort to show how a terrorist can illegally enter onto us soil for nefarious purposes. but as i recall, most of our terrorist actions have been conducted by domestic citizens or those who entered the us legally. our borders have been pretty secure against isis terrorists invading illegally from the north and south.
as a side note
“In James Okeefe’s amusing video, he shows how one of his colleagues, dressed in full ISIS terrorist garb, can rent a boat or jet ski in Canada, cross Lake Erie completely unmolested, and then walk into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland carrying a suspicious bag and not be stopped by anyone. ”
my understanding is that nobody actually crossed lake erie from canada to the us. the boats left port in cleveland and never entered canadian waters. they simple returned to the docks of the rock and roll hall of fame. at least according to the boat captain.
Baffles,
Yes, the boat captain did say that that they left Cleveland and then turned around before getting to Canadian waters. But watch the video carefully. The boat captain who said that was piloting the boat that O’keefe was on. The “Isis terrorist” was on a much smaller boat and, unlike the boat captain whose face was shown, the person driving the smaller boat that allegedly crossed from Canada had his face blurred in the video. I would expect that O’keefe was not on the boat that would cross from Canada. He’s well aware of the reporting requirements, and given the trouble in Mary Landrieu’s office, he probably does not want to be charged with any more offenses. But it’s not clear that the guy dressed as a terrorist didn’t actually make the crossing. If they had nothing to hide, why was the fake terrorist wearing a mask? And why was the boat pilot’s face blurred?
In any event, it hardly matters whether they actually made the crossing. O’keefe’s point is that although there are requirements to report to the border patrol, no one actually enforces it.
lax documentation and reporting requirements
See, this is the sort of silly security theater that does nothing to protect people from imaginary ninjas on jet skis. If people want to walk across the border, they will walk across the border regardless of how much wasteful documentation and reporting requirement bureaucracy you put in place. I thought conservatives were supposed to be against pointless government spending.
Joseph,
I actually agree with you on the security theater, most of which is a pointless waste of money. What O’keefe showed is true but I don’t think it matters very much. I only wanted to explain what Walker was actually talking about, which was not about building a wall on the Canadian border. If we actually state people’s real arguments, then we can have a genuine debate about them. I think it would be good to have a real debate about whether Walker’s right that we need more security on the Northern border. I don’t think we do. Maybe different security but not more. Democrats and Republicans both seriously exaggerate the threat of terrorism in my view.
nobody actually crossed lake erie from canada to the us.
What! You mean O’Keefe faked a video and fooled the dim-witted (no need to name names) — again? Tell me it isn’t true.
Joseph,
See my reply to Baffles above.
rick
“If they had nothing to hide, why was the fake terrorist wearing a mask? And why was the boat pilot’s face blurred?”
okeefe is a propaganda guy. those effects just add to the sensationalism. if the terrorist did cross, then all of them should have been arrested for illegal border crossing and smuggling. you would support that action if there truly was a border crossing, right? it is the law.
however, the captain clearly stated he would not do anything to subject his captain’s license to distress. this included an illegal crossing. it would also include smuggling. so the evidence does suggest this was nothing but a theatrical fake by okeefe.
“In any event, it hardly matters whether they actually made the crossing. O’keefe’s point is that although there are requirements to report to the border patrol, no one actually enforces it.”
it matters greatly. there was no demonstration of a lack of enforcement if there is actually no border crossing. vessels can be tracked on the great lakes, and if they are tracked across the lake they will attract attention of the authorities. a boat that simply leaves port in eastlake and returns to port in downtown cleveland is similar to a thousand other boats on the water at that same instant. why would authorities be interested in that boat? if you give any credibility to the okeefe video, you have simply fallen for his sensationalism and propaganda. you have been deceived by a millennial. think about that for a minute!
Baffles,
Look at the video. The captain is older, dressed in white, and is driving a big fishing boat. He said he didn’t make the crossing. Fine. The video doesn’t claim that he did. The guy dressed in the terrorist outfit is in a different, much smaller boat, driven by a man who is younger and is wearing different clothes from the fishing boat captain. You have no basis to claim that they didn’t make the crossing based on the captain’s statement that he didn’t cross. As usual, you are wrong on the facts.
If they did it, no, I don’t think they should be prosecuted. Progressive journalist David Gregory held up a high capacity magazine on his news program in Washington D.C. to make a point in an interview. Possession of such a magazine is highly illegal in Washington. However, he was not prosecuted because people recognized that he was acting as a journalist. The same goes for O’keefe’s associates.
It’s obvious that O’keefe is right that you can take a boat across Lake Erie easily. Why deny that? What you should be doing is asking whether what O’keefe did matters really. Does that really show a threat that needs to be plugged?
rick,
i do not need to look at an edited video full of sensationalist propaganda. i simply need to hear what captain swiney had to say about the episode
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2014/09/terrorists_invade_cleveland_fr.html
“As usual, you are wrong on the facts.”
i will accept your apology in advance.
Baffles,
No matter how wrong you are, you never quit. You remind me so much of the Black Night.
even when presented with evidence from captain swiney himself, rick cannot admit he is wrong. sad really. rick continues to confuse his beliefs with facts.
Baffles,
No, I presented evidence to you why Captain Swiney’s statement is irrelevant as to whether the fake terrorist actually crossed, evidence that you never refuted. Just to recap:
1) The video never claimed that Captain Swiney crossed Lake Erie from Canada
2) Captain Swiney is an older man, dressed in white, who is driving a big fishing boat. The man who allegedly transported the fake terrorist from Canada was younger, wore different clothes, and drove a different, smaller boat.
3) There is no quote from the actual boat driver who was transporting the fake terrorist that he never crossed Lake Erie
You never responded to these points other than to say that you don’t have to look at an “edited video full of sensationalist propaganda.” What does that even mean? The driver of the boat who transported the fake terrorist was not Captain Swiney. That’s clear to the naked eye whatever you think about the video. Captain Swiney’s statement that he didn’t do it is irrelevant as to whether the crossing actually happened.
It’s you who when confronted with contrary evidence can’t admit you are wrong. But you are wrong.
Bob Swiney:
“There was a woman in a kayak, that had kayaked out by the crib station there, in Cleveland, the water intake, and as we were driving back in towards Cleveland with a terrorist standing on the front of my boat, she was waving at him. Literally, like ‘How you doing? Great to see you,'” said Swiney.
http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/local/northeast-ohio/2014/09/10/lake-erie-terror-threat/15416397/
Watch the video.
The fake terrorist claims that he is leaving from Canada and is on a small boat driven by a different driver. About half way through the video, O’keefe says “Hiring a boat to travel from Canada to the middle of Lake Erie couldn’t be easier and no one seemed to notice the terrorist on board.” The small boat came up along side Swiney’s fishing boat and the terrorist came aboard the fishing boat, whereupon he was interviewed by O’keefe. The fake terrorist claimed that he came over from Canada. In video, it appears that the terrorist disembarks from the fishing boat at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
Neither I, nor you, and certainly not baffles knows whether they actually pulled off the stunt or not. Given what we see in the video, the Captain’s statement does not prove that they didn’t do it. However, I’ve maintained that it doesn’t matter whether they actually did it since the point of the video was that it is possible to do. If O’keefe came out and said that he really didn’t do it and that the video was a dramatization, it wouldn’t change the point at all.
Indeed, the Coast Guard agrees with my point. Nick Bartolotta, Chief of Response with the US Coast Guard, had this to say when asked if a small boat could cross the border as O’keefe’s report claimed:
“Of course it can happen. It is possible a small boat could come into the US undetected. Is it probable? I hope not,” said Bartolotta.
“There’s no way to know everybody. All those boats crossing the border. No way to know who’s on it, but those are considered a smaller risk versus larger vessels, which is where we do more in depth patrols and inspections,” Bartolotta said.
Again, instead of having this nonsense debate about whether O’keefe really did it, we should be asking whether it really matters that you can take a small boat across the Canadian border. To my way of thinking, although you can take a small boat across, the scenario that O’keefe paints seems pretty far fetched to me–more like an episode of 24 or a spy novel than real life. If you’ve read Ben Coes latest action thriller, Independence Day, the terrorists bring in an atomic bomb into NYC on a small boat.
With all due respect for Jack Bauer, I would not want to waste resources stopping and searching small boats on Lake Erie.
rick, even the rock and roll hall of fame didn’t think much positive about okeefe
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2014/09/rock_and_roll_hall_of_fame_disputes_videographer_okeefes_claim_that_a_fake_terrorist_entered_museum_without_challenge.html#incart_related_stories
rick has apparently been duped by a millennial with very little credibility and a habit of filming out of context with the hope of portraying a story that is not true. you still believe that filmed terrorist crossed the lake rick?
Baffling,
You are changing the subject and attributing a position to me that I did not take, straight out of your standard playbook. I said that based on the Captain’s statement you have no basis to conclude that the fake terrorist didn’t cross Lake Erie. I also said it didn’t matter because it is clear from the story that they could have, which is what matters to begin the policy discussion. I would remind you that I provided a quote from the Coast Guard agreeing with this last point that they could have crossed Lake Erie.
You now want to change the subject to whether they actually entered the rock and roll hall of fame without being noticed or stopped. Again, the article, whose author seems determined to discredit O’keefe, does not establish that. Of course, when they filmed the fake terrorist going through the door, everyone would have noticed that, since there is film crew there. But that doesn’t mean that the fake terrorist didn’t do it first with no film crew. In any event, this is a red herring. Whether the fake terrorist got into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame without being noticed is irrelevant to the policy-relevant fact that was reported: you can cross the Northern border in a small boat.
On O’keefe, the worst you can say about this situation, for which you have no evidence by the way, is that he dramatized the crossing rather than really did the crossing. Either way, he reported that you can cross in a small boat, which is true. So, no one is being duped by a millennial into believing a false fact relevant for the policy debate. But if you want to see massive cases of fake journalists duping the public about facts, you only have to look over at the progressive side.
There are many examples but perhaps the most egregious is progressive pseudo-documentarian Michael Moore. Moore is famous in his “documentaries” for splicing together election ads run by different groups and then claiming that his target ran the entire ad, changing the timing or context of meetings of talks in order to make them look bad in context, or rearranging the sentences in a speech to change the meaning. These are true distortions designed to mislead his audience about the truth, which is comprised of progressives who willingly pay him handsomely in the movie theater for his misrepresentations. Progressives have made Moore rich–we learned during his divorce that he is worth $50 million. As Moore himself put it:
“I’m a millionaire. I’m a mult-millionaire. I’m filthy rich. You know why I’m a multi-millionaire? Cause multi-millions like what I do. That’s pretty good, isn’t it? There’s millions that believe in what I do. Pretty cool, huh?”
Ironic that a guy becomes super-rich attacking capitalism. But Moore is right. Moore is confident that he can rely on a large supply of gullible progressives to pay him very well for his distortions. And I am confident that these same progressives will attack O’keefe without evidence for allegedly doing what Moore does 100 times worse, even though O’keefe isn’t getting rich in the process.
rick, lets recap how the conversation. you said
“In James Okeefe’s amusing video, he shows how one of his colleagues, dressed in full ISIS terrorist garb, can rent a boat or jet ski in Canada, cross Lake Erie completely unmolested, and then walk into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland carrying a suspicious bag and not be stopped by anyone. ”
and i replied “my understanding is that nobody actually crossed lake erie from canada to the us. the boats left port in cleveland and never entered canadian waters. they simple returned to the docks of the rock and roll hall of fame. at least according to the boat captain.”
contrary to your claim, i have not changed the subject. the evidence bears your statement to be incorrect. the terrorist did not cross lake erie, much less unmolested. he did not walk into the rock and roll hall of fame undetected (he was not stopped because he was monitored and deemed not a threat).
interesting, your hit job on michael moore is certainly an attempt to change the subject-something you accuse me of doing. but it does not change the fact you fell for the shoddy fictional propaganda video from an amateur millennial media hound! i would have thought you were smarter than that kid.
I see the Black Knight wants another go.
Yes, let’s recap and keep it very simple.
In the video, who was piloting the small boat when the fake terrorist said “leaving Canada now?” Was it a) Captain Swiney, b) someone who worked for Captain Swiney, c) someone Captain Swiney knows but doesn’t work for him, d) or someone he doesn’t know?
This is a simple question. Is it a), b), c), or d) and how do you know?
rick, did the terrorist cross lake erie or not. that is the question. i say not. apparently you believe he did. give captain swiney a call and see what he has to say about the entire episode. but remember, the captain has stated that he did not take anybody across the lake. further, he stated he would not do anything which would subject his captain’s license to risk. smuggling a terrorist from canada with contraband into cleveland harbor would certainly put him at risk. the captain never indicated he did such a thing. you can ask him yourself if you like.
http://www.fishfullthinkingcharters.com
or you can continue to believe as fact all that is presented in the dramatized fictional narrative by the millennial who pulled a fast one on you. we have already seen his dramatization regarding entering the rock and roll hall of fame was inaccurate. why would you believe anything else in the video is accurate? since okeefe also has a history of dramatization which resulted in a $100k settlement for mischaracterization in a previous video, perhaps you should reconsider the factual accuracy of his products. the evidence certainly does not support your claim that a terrorist invaded cleveland from canada. feel free to change the subject to mr moore at anytime 🙂
Baffles,
OK, now concentrate. You can do this.
I will…..help……you…..by…..going……very ….. very …. slowly… so….you… can…..follow. The man in… the ….video….who….trans….ported …..the….fake…terrorist…..wasn’t….Swiney.
There…fore…..Swiney’s…..statement…..that…..he……didn’t…..transport…..the……terrorist…..has…..no….bearing….on……whether……the…..other….boat…..pilot……did……..it.
Do…you….unders….staaaaaaaaaaaaand?
If you still don’t have it, maybe we can try cartoons or puppets?
rick,
watch the video. the terrorist is filmed riding on the bow of captain swiney’s boat as they head into cleveland. when he docked at the rock and roll hall of fame, he climbed out of captain swiney’s boad and walked toward the hall. he entered the hall carrying a gym bag and his mask in hand-not on his head.
maybe we can take this really slow for you rick. the “terrorist”…..climbed out of….captain swiney’s boat…..and walked into the rock and roll museum…..without a terrorist mask……while being monitored by security.
your statement “The man in… the ….video….who….trans….ported …..the….fake…terrorist…..wasn’t….Swiney.” is completely inaccurate.
so the question is, rick, are you simply dumb enough to be fooled by that millenial, or are you intentionally trying to be deceitful? it puts you in a bad light either way. but keep digging your hole deeper.
Baffles,
Maybe we are finally getting somewhere since you are now actually looking at the video rather than relying on a news article.
If you look at my comment to Joseph, you’ll see that I already made that point before you did when I said that “In the video, it appears that the terrorist disembarks from the fishing boat at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.” You don’t have to tell me that slowly. I already got that point long before you did.
But you need to watch the rest of the video. While the video depicts the fake terrorist getting off Captain Swiney’s fishing boat, it does not depict him getting on it. At second 52 in the video, the terrorist is filmed on a smaller boat driven by a different pilot and he says “leaving Canada now.” The video shows the small boat piloted by the mystery man pulling up along side Captain Swiney’s boat somewhere out in Lake Erie. The fake terrorist gets out of the smaller boat along with his fake ricin and ebola and comes aboard the fishing vessel, whereupon he is interviewed by O’keefe. During the interview, the fake terrorist claims that he came from Canada by hiring a small boat. Apparently, then, the fishing boat came back to Cleveland with the fake terrorist aboard, whereupon he disembarked at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
The video never claims that Captain Swiney transported anyone from Canada. That’s why his statement that he did not do so is irrelevant as to whether it happened. Swiney’s statement just confirms what we already see in the video.
Why can’t you just admit that you are wrong for once in your online life?
rick,
i watched the video days ago. that is how i came to the conclusion it is a fictional narrative. i also read an interview with swiney, and he says he would not do anything to risk his captain’s license. transporting a terrorist who illegally entered us waters with contraband would be classified as putting his captain’s license at risk. but i guess i cannot overcome the “leaving canada now” comment because okeefe would never put anything false into his documentaries for dramatic effect.
from the previously linked news article “The film O’Keefe released Monday purports to show a terrorist entering the United States from Canada, although the Eastlake charter boat captain who ferried O’Keefe around Lake Erie described the film as a “dramatization” and says the group never left U.S. waters.”
“He classified the video as a “tongue-in-cheek” dramatization of a potentially serious problem…” my guess is the crew, including the terrorist, never made it past the cleveland city water intake facility.
i guess we simply disagree about what the term “dramatization” means. but hey, rick, go ahead and believe that the terrorist crossed lake erie from canada and walked into the rock and roll hall of fame. i just watched a drama where we shipped a bunch of miners onto an asteroid headed for a collision with earth, but we drilled a hole and nuked the rock and saved mankind. i imagine that was true as well, since it was on a video.
don’t be a hack, rick.
Baffles,
It was a long road, but we are there. You said:
“but i guess i cannot overcome the “leaving canada now” comment because okeefe would never put anything false into his documentaries for dramatic effect”
You have to claim the trip on the small boat was staged, otherwise you have to explain how Swiney’s statement could be relevant for the trip on the small boat which was depicted as crossing from Canada.
You are dismissing the small boat trip by suggesting that O’keefe put something false in for dramatic effect. And then you are using that assumption, along with Swiney’s statement, to prove that the trip was dramatized.
Baffles, you can’t assume what you are trying to prove. Even you must realize the illogic of that. Well, uh, looking back at your comments over the years, maybe you don’t…..
rick, the “leaving canada now” bit was actually overdubbed into the video. there is nothing to indicate this statement was made as they left canada. dramatic effect. apparently it does not take much to baffle rick stryker.
but lets be clear. rick stryker believes okeefe actually filmed a terrorist who left the shores of canada on a small boat and traversed the great lake erie, and entered the rock and roll hall of fame undetected with his contraband of ricin and ebola.
you cannot apply logic to a dramatization which was illogical (not truthful) in its creation rick. it is like trying to have a rational discussion with an irrational person (rick stryker). it is futile. you seem to be rain man solving the riddle of who’s on first.
Baffles,
So, I was right. You are sticking with saying that the quote was dubbed, i.e., that video with the small boat was staged. In other words, you are assuming what you are trying to prove. Oh well–if you won’t follow the basic rules of logic there’s nothing anyone can do.
“but lets be clear. rick stryker believes okeefe actually filmed a terrorist who left the shores of canada on a small boat and traversed the great lake erie, and entered the rock and roll hall of fame undetected with his contraband of ricin and ebola.”
Baffles, I’ve made my position very clear if you would bother to read my previous comments. I am not saying that they definitely crossed. I have said that neither you, I, nor Joseph know if they did it or not. But I am saying that you can’t say they didn’t do it merely based on the Captain’s statement. You are wrong about that but since the rules of logic don’t apply in your case I suppose that you are incapable of admitting it.
But I’ve also made clear that I don’t think it matters if they actually did it. What matters is if they could have done it. I think it’s clear from the video that they could have done it, Swiney thinks they could have, and the US Coast Guard agrees.
“Baffles, I’ve made my position very clear if you would bother to read my previous comments. I am not saying that they definitely crossed. ”
rick, lets recap the conversation. you said
“In James Okeefe’s amusing video, he shows how one of his colleagues, dressed in full ISIS terrorist garb, can rent a boat or jet ski in Canada, cross Lake Erie completely unmolested, and then walk into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland carrying a suspicious bag and not be stopped by anyone. ”
now you can dance around your wording all you want. but you certainly seem to be saying he crossed the lake. i say he did not.
The US culture wars. A never ending source of entertainment.