Political? Huh?

[Roger Long]

I see my post about DUI issues at the Canadian border has been deep sixed. I'm having a hard time believing this could be considered OT or inappropriate. If you are in Maine, the northwest, or the Great Lakes, and sail with guests, it is an exceedingly important issue. Aside from having vacation plans ruined, there can be safety implications. In my case, I'm planning some cruises over to Nova Scotia. If my crew should be yanked off the boat and deported because of a 30 year old youthful indiscretion as happened to my friend, I could be faced with single handing home across some challenging and difficult waters.

I learned some very interesting things from the responses, i.e. that misdemeanor offenses of any kind are bars to Canadian entry. Evidently, computer upgrades on the Canadian side in recent years have turned this into a real issue for cross border cruisers.

I know many responsible and trustworthy people who might have done something foolish in their youth. Needing to grill anyone who I might take as crew or guest to Canada is a significant operational issue for me as a boat owner. Does something like this really not belong in this fourm? After all, the best and most active cruising grounds in the U.S. border Canada.

 

[MrBee]

Just from an outsider view, I think what sent it to the War Room Forum was the fact that the post started to go to the political side with talk of Bush and Cheney and such.

 

[Roger Long]

Just from an outsider view, I think what sent it to the War Room Forum was the fact that the post started to go to the political side with talk of Bush and Cheney and such.

I didn't see those replies. It was OT last I looked. Rather annoying to have a post about a perfectly valid issue that significantly effects sailing and cruising in many areas bounced because of replies the OP has no control over.

A little later:

I just looked over in the War Room. That was a poor call. The moderator is being as picky as the Canadians. If the OP is blatently political it's one thing. To bounce an important topic like this because of a couple slightly inappropriate replies is a disservice to all of us or at least the ones in border states.

 

[Ross]

Perhaps our moderators need to become a bit more moderate.

 

[Phil Herring]

The thread is now back in Ask All Sailors.

A word of advice to all: If you're in a sailing forum and using the name of a current or former president, chances are good you're posting to the wrong forum.

 

[sailingdog]

LOL... good point..

The thread is now back in Ask All Sailors.

A word of advice to all: If you're in a sailing forum and using the name of a current or former president, chances are good you're posting to the wrong forum.

 

[Roger Long]

The thread is now back in Ask All Sailors.

Thanks.

I think the take home message in this is not to cross one of the Great Lakes or the Gulf of Maine without enough fuel, supplies, physical endurance, and weather window to turn right around and go back again. The admittance issues have become so nutty on both sides that you can't take clearance as a given.

 

[Scott B]

just looked over in the War Room. That was a poor call. The moderator is being as picky as the Canadians.

Perhaps our moderators need to become a bit more moderate.

I looked at the thread quickly yesterday and considered moving it, but although it was getting political, like you said, there is some good information to know for those crossing the border.

Once it starts down the Canadian vs. US path it starts to get political.

BTW, it wasn't the Canadian that moved it originally

 

[Stu Jackson]

OK, I'll be moderate

and provide this link for those of you who missed the original: http://forums.catalina.sailboatowners.com/showthread.php?t=107038

Thanks, Scott, you "cross-border-rat," you!

 

[sailaway78]

Political

Some on this board just can't leave the politics out of a discussion. I agree that this is an important and interesting discussion, but it isn't necessary to make it into a political discussion.

 

[Ctskip]

Having been to Canada many times in years past. I was informed that the rules have changed. I can no longer go to Canada. If I tell them, they won't let me in. If I conveniently forget, and they find it, I'll go to jail for lieing on the application. I've never been convicted of anything. It's not worth it for me to even try. It's their loss

It's a security issue and when you talk about the security of a nation. How can you leave politics out?

Keep it up,
Ctskip

 

[Ron20324]

I looked at the thread quickly yesterday and considered moving it, but although it was getting political, like you said, there is some good information to know for those crossing the border. Once it starts down the Canadian vs. US path it starts to get political. BTW, it wasn't the Canadian that moved it originally

Why not move this to "Destinations", if not the trash can. It's all opinionated political ramblings anyway once the "information" part of it was stated some time ago.

 

[sailingdog]

I think Roger meant to say that "you can't take clearance as a given."

Thanks.

I think the take home message in this is not to cross one of the Great Lakes or the Gulf of Maine without enough fuel, supplies, physical endurance, and weather window to turn right around and go back again. The admittance issues have become so nutty on both sides that you can take clearance as a given.

 

[Scott B]

It's a security issue and when you talk about the security of a nation. How can you leave politics out?

By talking about how you can be denied access to either country, which if you're on your boat is relative to sailing and is what Roger was trying to get across in his OP. The "why"each country has those rules is for the War Room.

Why not move this to "Destinations", if not the trash can. It's all opinionated political ramblings anyway once the "information" part of it was stated some time ago.

This is aslo a good discussion on why posts get moved/ deleted. Phil has very few rules on the forum. One is that political discussions stay in the War Room. Phil felt it was getting political and hence moved it. He since moved it back after Roger started this thread wondering why.

 

[Ross]

One of the problems that confront policy makers , and they are very well aware, is that one size doesn't fit all but if they tried to specify national threat crimes versus personal threat crimes they would never get anything done. So they tar with a broad brush and a lot of people are inconvenienced. 95 year old grandmothers are as closely checked as a college student at airport security. It is just the way it is in todays world.

 

[Sailady]

wowll - you are saying if one has a misdemeanor conviction...you are barred entry into Canada.... wow.... that's something one definitely needs to know....

 

[Ctskip]

One doesn't even have to of been arrested/convicted in order to be refused admission into Canada.
Just belonging to a group of people Canada doesn't like and admission denied.

Keep it up,
Ctskip

 

[Ross]

Same in the USA. Just claim to be a card carrying member of Al Qaeda and try to get through customs.

 

[Maine Sail]

Once it starts down the Canadian vs. US path it starts to get political.

BTW, it wasn't the Canadian that moved it originally

BTW not the Mainer either..

Must have been the big man behind the curtain..

 

[dvideohd]

It's a bad rule... I guess that is the real point...

If it is based on "security" - it sure is NOT doing the job... just costing Canadians a good bit of tourist $$$$.

Ignoring Presidents..,. there are many senators/congressmen/military members that would not make the crossing.. and that is not a good thing, either.....

That you cannot "preclear" is completely a rotten idea...

In the US, there is a lot of records confusion - about who is who... Even in my small town, there are three people with "my name"... completely different - and unlrelated folk....

--jerry