Walking a Fine Line: Issues In Border Management

By Deborah Waller Meyers and Demetrios G. Papademetriou
Isuma, Canadian Journal of Policy Research
Spring 2000, Volume 1, Number 1

Canada and the United States share an 8,895-km border, the longest undefended border in the world. So maybe we should not be surprised that friends and colleagues who learn that we have been studying the US-Canada border ask, "Why?" After all, as far as they can tell there are no major problems in Canada-US relations. US-Canada trade exceeds US trade with Japan and Mexico combined; people and goods frequently cross the border for business and pleasure; the President and Prime Minister hold periodic summits; the two countries are frequent allies in global issues; and Canadians and Americans share an emphasis on the rule of law and democratic principles, a common language (mostly) and similar levels of social and economic development.

While the relationship in general and the border more specifically seem to operate smoothly, we believe there is room for improvement, particularly when it comes to border management. By this we mean both in terms of tangible issues in the existing system (such as long waits to cross the border, a crumbling infrastructure, inadequate knowledge of local circumstances, and a fight against undesirable entrants) and in more conceptual and forward-looking issues (such as devolving federal responsibilities and North American integration). The key principle in border management really is finding the correct balance between facilitation and control, between increasing efficiency while maintaining distinctiveness. This article will highlight some of the main issues that, based upon our research, need to be addressed in border management, as well as some of the local initiatives that already are taking place in this realm.

Project description

In the summer of 1998, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace undertook a comparative international project to advance understanding of how communities that straddle an international border, and at times form a single economic and cultural entity, manage common challenges. Focusing on the migration relationship, the goal was to catalogue existing local initiatives, understand and explain similarities and differences, identify and contextualize "best practices" in local self-management, and share these findings with a variety of stakeholders, including federal governments. Our working hypothesis was that border communities may identify and manage a different set of "realities" and priorities than those strategies and policies being discussed and decided in Washington, D.C. and Ottawa.

The Canada-US border was one of five different international border regions in this project (the others are US-Mexico, Germany-Poland, Russia-China, Russia-Kazakh). During five extensive visits to three areas along the Canada-US border (Vancouver/ Seattle/Surrey/Bellingham, Buffalo/Fort Erie/Niagara, and Windsor/Detroit/Port Huron) as well as a trip to Ottawa, we visited nine different ports-of-entry and conducted well over 80 interviews in both countries with local government officials, business leaders, federal immigration and customs officials, bridge operators, community-based non-governmental organizations, researchers and local residents.

Issues in Canada-US border management

From our research, a number of primary issues are crucial for better understanding the Canada-US border and thus how to address and improve its management.

Facilitation and transportation

Though trade between Canada and the United States is growing in leaps and bounds, facilitation and transportation of the trade have become problematic. Achieving efficient movement through the border would mean quickly, unintrusively and consistently moving across the border the millions of people and goods that are legitimately entitled to cross the border. One way of doing this would be to work jointly to expand and integrate pre-clearance programs such as PACE (American) and CANPASS (Canadian) and to aim to increase customs and immigration staffing along the border. We heard numerous complaints of long lines at the border, particularly when existing booths were not open because of understaffing, and also complaints about having to register for separate pre-clearance programs in both countries.

Efficiency, however, also means making quick and accurate decisions about those that should not cross the border and about separating low-risk from high-risk traffic. One approach is the sharing of data on common interests such as terrorists or smugglers. Some of this already is taking place based on the premise that both countries want to keep out the same persons and goods.

One reason the long waits are an issue is because of the concentration of passenger and commercial traffic at a few, particular crossing points. According to Transport Canada, in 1996, 61.5 percent of truck traffic crossed through Ontario alone, with another 13.5 percent crossing through Quebec, 12.7 percent through BC and the Yukon, 7.7 percent through the Prairies, and 4.5 percent through the Atlantic provinces. This means that almost 80 percent of US-Canada trade passes through the eastern crossings. This concentrated traffic has an impact not only on the crossings and inspection spaces themselves (be they land crossings, bridges or tunnels), but also on the immediately surrounding roads and the highways leading into and away from them.

The existing infrastructure was not built for these levels of traffic and already is bursting at the seams. It clearly is inadequate for future needs given the growth rate of cross-border traffic. We need to be thinking ahead and making far greater investments in infrastructure and in technology (both at ports-of-entry and the corridors leading to such ports). Yet there may not be a "one-size-fits-all" answer since border dynamics may differ according to whether there is a bridge or land crossing; whether the region is urban and highly populated or rural and remote; the degree to which neighboring communities share languages, cultures and religions; the types of business and industry in the area; the level of tourism to the region; and many other factors.

Some localities are leading the way in thinking about managing the challenges of this growing cross-border traffic in their regions. They already are engaged in sharing information and solutions, but the effort must become more widespread to achieve maximum policy impact. For instance, the Niagara region holds periodic cross-border legislative meetings at the state/provincial level. Binational regional planning groups that include stakeholders from both countries, organized by the Southeastern Michigan and Whatcom County Councils of Government, have worked together to secure funds for significant improvements to the infrastructure of trade corridors (such as 1-94 in Detroit and the 1-5 corridor in the Pacific Northwest). They have demonstrated the value of this innovative and cooperative model by making successful joint proposals for funding for international border crossings from the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21).

Unauthorized entry

A second issue in Canada-US border management relates to the legitimate concerns shared by the United States and Canada about undesirable elements, such as illegal immigrants, drugs, weapons and terrorists crossing through ports-of-entry. However, those most serious about breaking or avoiding the law (e.g., terrorists and smugglers) generally have ample time and resources to bypass port-of-entry controls without much effort. Also, the estimated incidents of illegal entry of goods or people are rare when compared with the tremendous volume of crossings. In fact, in town-hall and focus-group meetings that included American and Canadian citizens and residents, not a single person put forward serious security concerns about the entry of Canadians or Americans into their respective countries or argued that a more open or differently managed border would lead to less security.

Moreover, no evidence suggests that even in places where the anti-smuggling/anti-drug effort is most dedicated, the inspection system currently in place at either country's border actually intercepts most would-be violators. A number of people suggested to us that a random inspection method would probably be as effective as the current inspection methodologies. Most good "busts" occur as a result of tips, human intelligence work and seamless on-the-ground cooperation between the law enforcement agencies in both countries, such as multi-agency task forces against organized crime.

We should not overreact to occasional violations of our laws nor interfere with economic interests and local community dynamics by inconveniencing the 98 or 99 percent of compliant traffic while trying to pursue the remaining one or two percent who are non-compliant (especially when many immigration violators seem to be neither deliberately nor meaningfully non-compliant and most drug violators are "mom-and-pop" types carrying small amounts of marijuana rather than serious drug smugglers). Nonetheless, we do not mean to belittle the importance of the drug and people smuggling interdiction efforts. In fact, we agree that this is a proper government priority and that both governments should be focusing resources on high-risk traffic of all types. Violators and potential violators should be targeted through joint intelligence efforts and other cooperative efforts. Canadians and Americans are equally interested in keeping out of their countries the same types of terrorists and organized drug and alien smugglers. Counterparts in both governments should be institutionalizing contacts, enhancing cooperation and sharing information on small and large matters and gradually focusing ever larger parts of that effort at initial entries into the North American continent. It may be easier and more desirable to construct a Fortress North America than a fortress around either one of the individual countries.

Information sharing

The third issue we raise based on our research is that, despite the importance of the two-way trade and the legitimate security concerns of each country, US-Canada border issues receive inadequate attention both in academia and in the government. Perhaps this explains why national border policies are not more sensitive to local and regional differences and also the lack of funding from federal policy makers for these issues. For instance, many of the problems at ports-of-entry in the eastern half of the United States (e.g., long lines and long waits because only two out of ten booths may be staffed) can be alleviated with additional staffing. More inspectors can translate into greater facilitation and better enforcement while also addressing such collateral issues as the additional environmental pollution resulting from trucks awaiting inspection.

We are suggesting that consciousness-raising needs to happen both vertically within governments and horizontally within border communities across the two countries. Federal policy makers need to become more aware of the "facts-on-the-ground" and of local initiatives. At the same time, people who are actively involved at the local level should try to learn about issues in other border communities. For all the wonderful regional initiatives that are taking place, the coalitions at this point are fairly narrow. Existing groups mainly focus on particular sectors, such as private industry, or specific regions, like Cascadia. But there are too few coalitions (at least that we are aware of) between Blaine and Buffalo, or between the business community and non-governmental organizations. The grassroots effort must be broad-based if it is going to reach Ottawa and Washington, D.C. Our project hopes to encourage this kind of awareness and learning between federal and local levels.

Our research has identified many positive initiatives at the local level that deserve attention. The Can-Am Border Trade Alliance, a borderwide public/private binational partnership seeking to improve the efficient flow of goods and people across the US-Canada border, is one example of the binational private-sector initiatives taking place. Similarly, the cross-border regional network called the Canada-US BorderNet Alliance is comprised of business organizations focused on the development of trade, tourism and investment in the Niagara Region. The University of Windsor demonstrates an academic cross-border initiative by offering a NAFTA tuition rate to American and Mexican students that is almost the same as what Canadian students pay, and a coalition of over 20 colleges and universities between Toronto and Rochester has aligned itself into the Golden Horseshoe Educational Alliance. With respect to tourism, the "Two-Nation Vacation" concept is being marketed by Convention and Visitors Bureaus in Washington State and BC, and the same is being done by Chambers of Commerce in Niagara, Ontario and Niagara, New York. They also are undertaking joint overseas trade missions and promoting the economic development of the entire region. All of these great initiatives need more publicity, though, in order to truly affect policy.

Devolution

Fourth, this discussion on border management is occurring in an era where a variety of policy issues have been delegated by the federal governments to the provincial and state governments and where the number of actors and interests for any given issue has proliferated. Immigration and customs laws are made at the federal level in both countries, however, allowing for little local flexibility. Therefore the federal structure remains important. The impressive interagency manner in which the Canadian government is organized for border concerns, for instance, demonstrates the special commitment, interest and priority it lends to its border. This makes sense given that approximately 80 percent of Canadians live within 100 miles of the US border.

While a national policy framework is necessary to some extent, cross-border communities are diverse, and the "one-size-fits-all" approach may be too inflexible and an inappropriate fit for border issues. We all know that the US-Canada border has some differences from the US-Mexico border. But even along a single border, there are regional characteristics that create their own set of needs, challenges, and priorities and that make generalization difficult.

For example, Ontario, New York and Michigan residents have no experience with the salmon disputes, as do those living in BC and Washington, but they do share Niagara Falls and the Great Lakes. The Niagara/Buffalo area handles many tourist crossings but must also take into account Native Americans who are allowed to cross freely into either country because of the Jay Treaty. The Pacific Northwest is concerned about high quality marijuana produced in BC and about efforts at weapons smuggling, as well as about fraudulently labeled goods trying to enter tariff free under NAFTA.

How, then, do the local representatives of the federal agencies deal with this challenge? Can they take into account local circumstances? In Windsor and Detroit, this may mean recognizing the essential integration of the auto industry since the 1965 Auto Pact and not creating regulations that disrupt long-standing practices. It also may mean recognizing that the local communities view the border as an advantage, as Windsor residents take the Tunnel Bus across the border to cheer for the Detroit Red Wings and Tigers and as Detroiters routinely visit restaurants and the casino on the other side of the international boundary. In Point Roberts, WA, it may mean recognizing the realities of the 1,000 local residents (and summer tourists) who live on this American peninsula below the 49th parallel, surrounded on three sides by water and on the fourth by Canada. However, flexibility and innovation must occur in an environment that makes arbitrary actions or arbitrary interpretations of rules unacceptable.

One example in which the local federal representatives have attempted to address local needs is at the Peace Bridge in Buffalo, where cooperative efforts led to the creation of the Commercial Vehicle Processing Center. This will address space limitations on the US side by processing/clearing US-bound cargo while still on the Canadian side of the plaza. Similarly, federal agencies in the Pacific Northwest have worked jointly to re-route late-night passenger traffic to truck lanes to permit staff from the lightly used car traffic lanes to reduce the long truck backups.

At the local level, then, communities on both sides of a common border are thinking creatively and often collaboratively about common problems and interests and, to the degree they are allowed to do so, have developed processes and institutions that give substance to the concept of devolution. We believe that local officials, in partnership with business interests, worker organizations, and community-based and other relevant groups, should play a much more significant role in the ongoing discussions about and the implementation of policies that affect their lives. The central governments should be soliciting this involvement as well as that of the private sector and other interests whose thinking often is ahead of the curve.

Reconceptualizing the border

The final issue we raise may be the most important because it encompasses all others. This is the reality of NAFTA and the way in which Canada, the United States and Mexico are moving toward a fully integrated region. On this premise, we need to start thinking about the border as a system and thinking in a prospective manner about inspections and cross-border movement. How do we want to see borders operate in the future and what is the best way of getting there?

Simultaneously, we respect that the two countries have different priorities and different laws (e.g., drugs and guns). For instance, the border is a much more salient issue for Canadians because, as previously noted, the majority of them live near it. For the United States, the appearance of equity with both its NAFTA neighbours is a salient issue. Ironically, one way in which the countries are being treated similarly is that on neither border are the goals being met satisfactorily of efficiently facilitating all the commercial, commuter and visitor traffic while simultaneously engaging in effective enforcement. On the US-Mexico border this results from reeling under the weight of efforts to bring it under control while the US-Canada border suffers partly from the malady of inattention discussed earlier, but the results are the same.

While many people we interviewed would like to see more seamless movement, they also have told us -- to varying degrees and for varying reasons -- that the border between the United States and Canada should not disappear. Americans tend to point to security concerns as a reason for maintaining a clearly delineated border, although not to the extent that they are concerned about security along the US-Mexico border. Canadians tend to point to sovereignty concerns and the preservation of their national identity and culture as reasons to maintain some type of border.

How do we move toward increased integration while maintaining our distinct identities and priorities? Do we want to have shared border inspection stations or cross-trained inspections officials to maximize efficiencies? Some also have suggested harmonizing overseas visa policies as a means of strengthening the North American perimeter but allowing freer movement within that perimeter.

Perhaps within the framework of a national border policy, border relationships should be seen as a continuum, with progress along different borders and in different regions occurring at different speeds. There are some aspects of the US-Canada border relationship that have developed further than along the US-Mexico border, such as data sharing among officials. But, conversely, some aspects of the US-Mexico border are more advanced than on the US-Canada border, such as the multitude of Mexican consulates and a process for responding to complaints of mistreatment. So the lessons learned and information sharing can be multi-directional.