Sunday May 20th 2012
Americas view
The Americas
Economist Asks
Stick up for yourself
Jan 3rd 2012, 22:52 by The Economist online
THE Canadian government plans to loosen some of its border restrictions to facilitate trade with the United States. By a narrow margin, The Economist's readers think this decision is a mistake: 54% of them said Canada should hold firm on its policies.
This week's poll concerns Brazilian energy policy. The government has fined Chevron $34m for a 3,000-barrel oil spill. Do you think this amount is reasonable? Let us know.
About Americas view
In this blog, our correspondents provide reporting, analysis and opinion on politics, economics, society and culture in Latin America, the Caribbean and Canada.
Advertisement
Economist blogs
- Analects | China
- Americas view | The Americas
- Babbage | Science and technology
- Bagehot's notebook | British politics
- Banyan | Asia
- Baobab | Africa
- Blighty | Britain
- Buttonwood's notebook | Financial markets
- Charlemagne's notebook | European politics
- Clausewitz | Defence, security and diplomacy
- Democracy in America | American politics
- Eastern approaches | Ex-communist Europe
- Elysée | France’s presidential election
- Free exchange | Economics
- Game theory | Sports
- Graphic detail | Charts, maps and infographics
- Gulliver | Business travel
- Johnson | Language
- Leviathan | Public policy
- Lexington's notebook | American politics
- Newsbook | News analysis
- Prospero | Books, arts and culture
- Schumpeter | Business and management
Most commented
- The euro in crisis: Groping towards Grexit
- The euro crisis: The Greek run
- Gay marriage: North Carolina begs the question too
- Renouncing citizenship: Did Eduardo Saverin do anything wrong?
- Brazil’s economy: A bull diminished
- Greek politics: Slouching towards the drachma
- The euro crisis: Europe’s Achilles heel
- Should gay marriage be legal in America?
- The euro crisis: Going, going, gone?
- Daily chart: The German motor
Over the past five days
Most recommended
- The euro crisis: Europe’s Achilles heel
- Lexington: Peter David
- Gay marriage: North Carolina begs the question too
- Renouncing citizenship: Did Eduardo Saverin do anything wrong?
- The euro crisis: The Greek run
- The euro in crisis: Groping towards Grexit
- J.P. Morgan’s trading mistakes: A billion here, a billion there
- Greece fails to form a government: Adrift
- Greek politics: Slouching towards the drachma
- Poverty: The audacity of hope
Over the past seven days
Advertisement
Products & events
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
Canada is giving much, but not getting anything really.
I am actually quite curious what percentage of the voters actually crossed US/Canada border so that they don't make a point about Canada sticking it up to the man, but about more practical aspects of the collaboration.
The problem is, it is not the private individuals having trouble crossing the border. It is not the problem of people moving stuff illegally across the border - that is actually remarkably easy. It is about screening the endless trucks with auto parts moving across the border and the like when current US regulations become a pain in the rear. It really slows down trade, and for no good reason with Americans screening legit trucks for radioactivity and biohazard when it is literally easier to move that sort of stuff across the border illegally somewhere in Lake Superior region, for example.
Just chalk it up to the current American enthusiasm for security theater. It certainly fits the definition: supposedly related to security, but doing nothing to actually improve security while maximizing the inconvenience so everybody will know that "steps have been taken."
The US-Canadian Border is the longest unguarded border in the world. In most areas there is not even a fence.
In addition the continent is protected by the world's largest moats: The Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
This has saved the military billions of dollars and enabled it to be reoriented as an overseas expeditionary force, master of the seas and supreme air power.
The United States can withdraw into an impenetrable fortress, but would the world be better off?
Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Qaadafi and Bin Ladin would say yes.