|
Homeland Security vs. Common Sense
The following episode might be of interest to fellow boaters cruising the
San Juans and Canadian Gulf Islands.... We were returning from Bedwell Harbour on the Canadian side of the boundary to our designated port of entry for U.S. customs at Roche Harbor - the weather forecast was for patchy fog - but as we left visibility improved and after checking with Victoria Vessel Traffic Control on the VHF were assured that no large shipping was scheduled to transit Boundary Pass we proceeded using our radar, GPs and monitoring both channel 16 and 5 on the VHF. All was OK until we neared Turn Point on Stuart Island - when the fog closed in and we were in about 100 feet of visibility.... we "tippy toed" along using our air horn and communicating with other traffic nearby on our VHF - at this point we decided to proceed to Reid Harbor (right around the corner) and anchor until conditions improved. However, the fog was localized around Turn Point - and all of a sudden we were in brillian sunshine and could proceed across to Roche Harbor and the customs inspection. When I asked the young inspector what would have happened if we - for the sake of safety - had dropped the hook in Reid before proceeding to Roche - his answer was "you are not allowed to do that - and if you can not proceed to Roche, you must return to Canadian waters!". I explained that that was not a safe option due to the dense fog and that it would have been impossible to proceed across the busy San Juan Channel in dense fog due to the ferry traffic.... He maintained that if I had anchored - even to safeguard the boat and the lives of those onboard the vessel - I would have been subject to a $5000. fine and possible arrest and confiscation of the vessel!!! Talk about bureaucracy run amok... I am sure I feel so much safer with the Department of Homeland Security taking such a rigid stance!!! I had a informal word later with a member of a Coast Guard vessel who was refueling next to us.. and his advise was "Safety First - if you have to anchor due to imminent danger - do it - just don't tell Customs about it when you check in!". And I can not help wondering if you get arrested if you run your vessel aground before you check with Customs :-) |
Homeland Security vs. Common Sense
I had a informal word later with a member of a Coast Guard vessel who was refueling next to us.. and his advise was "Safety First - if you have to anchor due to imminent danger - do it - just don't tell Customs about it when you check in!". And I can not help wondering if you get arrested if you run your vessel aground before you check with Customs :-) It may help if you remember that they are trying to make rules to make it harder for the terrorists. It would sure help if _they_ would remember that. Don W. |
Homeland Security vs. Common Sense
That is unfortunately US DHS policy. Even though all USCG NOTAMS that
describe restricted areas allow exceptions in case of emergencies but as far as Customs and Border Protection or the DOD are concerned emergencies don't count. Last year a flight of French fighters on joint maneuvers with the Canadian AF ran low on fuel due to the weather and requested permission to land at a US field. They were refused permission and were allowed to land at Atlantic City only after the intervention by the State Department and the FAA. http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/318906.shtml The really odd thing was once they finally landed they were stuck because none of the pilots had enough room on their credit cards to buy enough fuel to get back in the air. :-) -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com "claus" wrote in message ... The following episode might be of interest to fellow boaters cruising the San Juans and Canadian Gulf Islands.... We were returning from Bedwell Harbour on the Canadian side of the boundary to our designated port of entry for U.S. customs at Roche Harbor - the weather forecast was for patchy fog - but as we left visibility improved and after checking with Victoria Vessel Traffic Control on the VHF were assured that no large shipping was scheduled to transit Boundary Pass we proceeded using our radar, GPs and monitoring both channel 16 and 5 on the VHF. All was OK until we neared Turn Point on Stuart Island - when the fog closed in and we were in about 100 feet of visibility.... we "tippy toed" along using our air horn and communicating with other traffic nearby on our VHF - at this point we decided to proceed to Reid Harbor (right around the corner) and anchor until conditions improved. However, the fog was localized around Turn Point - and all of a sudden we were in brillian sunshine and could proceed across to Roche Harbor and the customs inspection. When I asked the young inspector what would have happened if we - for the sake of safety - had dropped the hook in Reid before proceeding to Roche - his answer was "you are not allowed to do that - and if you can not proceed to Roche, you must return to Canadian waters!". I explained that that was not a safe option due to the dense fog and that it would have been impossible to proceed across the busy San Juan Channel in dense fog due to the ferry traffic.... He maintained that if I had anchored - even to safeguard the boat and the lives of those onboard the vessel - I would have been subject to a $5000. fine and possible arrest and confiscation of the vessel!!! Talk about bureaucracy run amok... I am sure I feel so much safer with the Department of Homeland Security taking such a rigid stance!!! I had a informal word later with a member of a Coast Guard vessel who was refueling next to us.. and his advise was "Safety First - if you have to anchor due to imminent danger - do it - just don't tell Customs about it when you check in!". And I can not help wondering if you get arrested if you run your vessel aground before you check with Customs :-) |
Homeland Security vs. Common Sense
And I can not help wondering if you get arrested if you run your vessel
aground before you check with Customs :-) Why bother worrying? It's far easier to just flail the hype on a newsgroup instead. Yeesh. |
Homeland Security vs. Common Sense
What hype?
"Bill Kearney" wrote in message t... And I can not help wondering if you get arrested if you run your vessel aground before you check with Customs :-) Why bother worrying? It's far easier to just flail the hype on a newsgroup instead. Yeesh. |
Homeland Security vs. Common Sense
The whole notion that it's somehow any sort of realistic risk. Sure,
there's all sorts of things that "could go wrong" but in reality they very seldom do. Seems it's just fashionable lately to scream like Chicken Little about so-called risks because of increased security procedures. I find it rather tiresome. "claus" wrote in message . .. What hype? "Bill Kearney" wrote in message t... And I can not help wondering if you get arrested if you run your vessel aground before you check with Customs :-) Why bother worrying? It's far easier to just flail the hype on a newsgroup instead. Yeesh. |
Homeland Security vs. Common Sense
The whole notion that just because it did not happen to the OP, then it
will not happen and is a "Chicken Little" type concern is what is ridiculous. With the amount of sea traffic, the problem the OP identified most certainly *will* happen. I see nothing "Chicken Little"ish about his post. It seems to me that being a "Chicken Little" is not the danger here. Being a Sheep is the danger. Unfortunately, there are a lot of Sheep in our society. The only time the Sheep exhibit any semblance of courage is when they "flail" a person with the courage to stand up and speak out about a government run amok. Voting, political contributions and writing to our congressional representatives are not the only ways we influence our government. One way we influence our government is exactly what the OP did. We co-opt other people in government. The OP talked with someone else in government (a CG officer) about the problem he experienced and the unreasonableness of the government's policy. That sort of grass roots feedback is exceedingly important in guiding our government. (Yes. That's right. Just as our Constitution says, our government is ruled by us. It is our responsibility to guide and control it. Daily. Even minute by minute.) The other thing the OP did right is exactly what you "flail". He discussed the problem he found with other citizens. With us. Yep. That's right. (Again.) It is our responsibility to discuss our government among ourselves. I applaud the OP for having both the courage and the integrity to do his duty. (While being completely on-topic for the NG, I should add.) Bill Kearney wrote: The whole notion that it's somehow any sort of realistic risk. Sure, there's all sorts of things that "could go wrong" but in reality they very seldom do. Seems it's just fashionable lately to scream like Chicken Little about so-called risks because of increased security procedures. I find it rather tiresome. "claus" wrote in message . .. What hype? "Bill Kearney" wrote in message t... And I can not help wondering if you get arrested if you run your vessel aground before you check with Customs :-) Why bother worrying? It's far easier to just flail the hype on a newsgroup instead. Yeesh. |
Homeland Security vs. Common Sense
Bill Kearney wrote:
The whole notion that it's somehow any sort of realistic risk. Sure, there's all sorts of things that "could go wrong" So you acknowledge a real increase in risk . . . but in reality they very seldom do. meaning you believe the risks are lower (i.e., more seldom) than others believe them to be? Seems it's just fashionable lately to scream like Chicken Little about so-called risks because of increased security procedures. I find it rather tiresome. And therefore hearing others espouse different assessments of risk than those you hold is rather tiresome to you and you would rather they either adopt your risk assessments or simply remain silent? Thank you for sharing that with us, Bill. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Homeland Security vs. Common Sense
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 08:22:59 -0400, Bill Kearney wrote:
The whole notion that it's somehow any sort of realistic risk. Sure, there's all sorts of things that "could go wrong" but in reality they very seldom do. Seems it's just fashionable lately to scream like Chicken Little about so-called risks because of increased security procedures. I find it rather tiresome. Is the trampling of your constitutional rights by Bush II et al a "tiresome" topic too Bill? Nevermind. Just shove your head back in that sunless little hole and feel safe from scary terrorist types, whoever they might be. Been to the loosechange site? |
Homeland Security vs. Common Sense
In due respect, at this time of year dense fog banks do occur quite suddenly
around the San Juan islands. The point I was trying to make was simply that a good sailor must always repeat always keep the safety of his vessel and crew first and foremost, irrespective of bureaucratic rules. And if you read my posting, the local Coast Guard crew confirmed the safety first rule. You are of course free to do whatever you wish to do - and in your case I wonder what you would do in the situation I described. "Bill Kearney" wrote in message ... The whole notion that it's somehow any sort of realistic risk. Sure, there's all sorts of things that "could go wrong" but in reality they very seldom do. Seems it's just fashionable lately to scream like Chicken Little about so-called risks because of increased security procedures. I find it rather tiresome. "claus" wrote in message . .. What hype? "Bill Kearney" wrote in message t... And I can not help wondering if you get arrested if you run your vessel aground before you check with Customs :-) Why bother worrying? It's far easier to just flail the hype on a newsgroup instead. Yeesh. |
Homeland Security vs. Common Sense
TITLE 19 CHAPTER 4 SUBTITLE III Part II § 1434Prev | Next
§ 1434. Entry; vessels How Current is This? (a) Formal entry Within 24 hours (or such other period of time as may be provided under subsection (c)(2) of this section) after the arrival at any port or place in the United States of- (1) any vessel from a foreign port or place; (2) any foreign vessel from a domestic port; (3) any vessel of the United States having on board foreign merchandise for which entry has not been made; or (4) any vessel which has visited a hovering vessel or has delivered or received merchandise while outside the territorial sea; the master of the vessel shall, unless otherwise provided by law, make formal entry at the nearest customs facility or such other place as the Secretary may prescribe by regulation. (b) Preliminary entry The Secretary may by regulation permit the master to make preliminary entry of the vessel with the Customs Service in lieu of formal entry or before formal entry is made. In permitting preliminary entry, the Customs Service shall board a sufficient number of vessels to ensure compliance with the laws it enforces. (c) Regulations The Secretary may by regulation- (1) prescribe the manner and format in which entry under subsection (a) of this section or subsection (b) of this section, or both, must be made, and such regulations may provide that any such entry may be made electronically pursuant to an electronic data interchange system; (2) provide that- (A) formal entry must be made within a greater or lesser time than 24 hours after arrival, but in no case more than 48 hours after arrival, and (B) formal entry may be made before arrival; and (3) authorize the Customs Service to permit entry or preliminary entry of any vessel to be made at a place other than a designated port of entry, under such conditions as may be prescribed. § 1436. Penalties for violations of arrival, reporting, entry, and clearance requirements (a) Unlawful acts It is unlawful- (1) to fail to comply with section 1431, 1433, or 1434 of this title or section 91 of title 46, Appendix; (2) to present or transmit, electronically or otherwise, any forged, altered, or false document, paper, information, data or manifest to the Customs Service under section 1431, 1433 (d), or 1434 of this title or section 91 of title 46, Appendix, without revealing the facts; (3) to fail to make entry or to obtain clearance as required by section 1434 or 1644 of this title, section 91 of title 46, Appendix, or section 1644a (b)(1) or (c)(1) of this title; or (4) to fail to comply with, or violate, any regulation prescribed under any section referred to in any of paragraphs (1) through (3). (b) Civil penalty Any master, person in charge of a vehicle, or aircraft pilot who commits any violation listed in subsection (a) of this section is liable for a civil penalty of $5,000 for the first violation, and $10,000 for each subsequent violation, and any conveyance used in connection with any such violation is subject to seizure and forfeiture. (c) Criminal penalty In addition to being liable for a civil penalty under subsection (b) of this section, any master, person in charge of a vehicle, or aircraft pilot who intentionally commits any violation listed in subsection (a) of this section is, upon conviction, liable for a fine of not more than $2,000 or imprisonment for 1 year, or both; except that if the conveyance has, or is discovered to have had, on board any merchandise (other than sea stores or the equivalent for conveyances other than vessels) the importation of which into the United States is prohibited, such individual is liable for an additional fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both. (d) Additional civil penalty If any merchandise (other than sea stores or the equivalent for conveyances other than a vessel) is imported or brought into the United States in or aboard a conveyance which was not properly reported or entered, the master, person in charge of a vehicle, or aircraft pilot shall be liable for a civil penalty equal to the value of the merchandise and the merchandise may be seized and forfeited unless properly entered by the importer or consignee. If the merchandise consists of any controlled substance listed in section 1584 of this title, the master, individual in charge of a vehicle, or pilot shall be liable to the penalties prescribed in that section. |
Homeland Security vs. Common Sense
You are of course free to do whatever you wish to do - and in your case I
wonder what you would do in the situation I described. Just like the Coasties said, take whatever measures are best to maintain the safety of the passengers and vessel. Like any other time safety conflicts with regulations I'll take the risk of being ALIVE for the bureaucratic untangling. And without hyping the so-called 'risk'. It's not about being sheep, by any stretch, it's about balance. Being free to travel, accepting the overlapping issues. Being free to speak without being silenced by insults. Being responsible to call those flailing hype to task. But hey, feel free to be cowering assholes, it's a talent a good number of you seem to have honed to a fine edge. |
Homeland Security vs. Common Sense
This conundrum has come up in aviation as well. The cases there have
been very simple and the same principle will probably be applied to boat border crossings. The FAA says, "Put safety first or we take your license." Customs says, "Put customs clearance first or we fine you $5000." Two different agencies, two different agendas, two different penalty structures. The great thing about this being a free country is that we get to choose which horn to get gored by. The nice thing about the USCG being the gatekeepers is that they have an institutional bias towards safety first. Once customs gets involved, or perhaps someone in the USCG that came up post 911, you'll probably get screwed whatever you do. Custom's attitude will be, "What, you didn't listen to the weather report and assure yourself that you could complete the trip to the port of entry? That's what the $5000 fine is for, to make you more careful." -- Roger Long |
Homeland Security vs. Common Sense
On 22 Sep 2006 14:38:01 -0500, Dave wrote:
In any event, however, the text of the statute really has little to do with the subject under discussion, which is sensible application of law and regulation. When push comes to shove, "sensible" almost never enters into the discussion, only strict legal interpretation of what the law actually says. Assuming the quoted text is current law, there is a provision for both "preliminary" and "electronic" check in. There is also a 24 hour requirement that comes into play. It would appear that if forced to anchor temporarily you should be within requirements if you call in with a preliminary electronic check in, followed by a formal check in within 24 hours. Here in south Florida I have heard of several boats who called customs as soon as they entered US waters, only to be told that they should call again when actually docked. |
Homeland Security vs. Common Sense
.....
[US Customs] maintained that if I had anchored - even to safeguard the boat and the lives of those onboard the vessel - I would have been subject to a $5000. fine and possible arrest and confiscation of the vessel!!! Talk about bureaucracy run amok... I don't think you can really blame Homeland Security for this. Most customs departments around the world have similar rules. In the South Pacific lots of cruisers get in trouble by stopping before checking in or after checking out. Force majeure is not an excuse in and of itself. I ran into this myself when I checked out of Savusavu, Fiji for New Zealand but decided to divert to Suva because of engine failure. I got into modest trouble despite checking in with the national radio watch and customs... I've taken my boat to 12 countries and all of them have anti-stopping laws with the least restrictive being in French Polynesia where you can check in anywhere with a gendarme (oddly New Caledonia has harsh anti-stopping policies). Entering New Zealand, where the weather often gets nasty, people get in trouble with customs when they stop in the outer anchorages of the Bay of Islands to take shelter from the weather. Of course, if you really think you are in danger of losing your vessel or getting hurt if you don't take shelter then you should take shelter... However, don't expect Customs anywhere to take you at your word. I know a guy who was fined and given 48 hours to leave Australia for taking shelter before checking in. In short, I don't think this is really a "war on terror" issue but a kind of timeless friction between customs officers and boaters... --Tom. PS. I suspect that if you ask a Canadian Customs officer if you can stop before checking into Canada you'll get pretty much the same answer you got from you US officer. |
Homeland Security vs. Common Sense
On 22 Sep 2006 15:41:01 -0500, Dave wrote:
You display a profound ignorance of the way the legal system operates. OK, please enlighten us. |
Homeland Security vs. Common Sense
A good example of how it works is in the current "Newsweek". Lawyers
now advise divorcing women whose husbands have abused their children not to bring it up. The woman appears to be making hysterical accusations, she is holding out for complete custody with no unsupervised visitation by the husband. Meanwhile, the husband is saying that he would be PERFECTLY satisfied with 50 - 50 custody. He seems reasonable, sober, and accommodating. The upshot? The majority of abusing husbands end up with complete custody! And, you expect reasonable treatment when bringing you yacht back across the border? -- Roger Long "Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On 22 Sep 2006 15:41:01 -0500, Dave wrote: You display a profound ignorance of the way the legal system operates. OK, please enlighten us. |
Homeland Security vs. Common Sense
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 19:03:13 GMT, "Roger Long"
wrote: A good example of how it works is in the current "Newsweek". Lawyers now advise divorcing women whose husbands have abused their children not to bring it up. The woman appears to be making hysterical accusations, she is holding out for complete custody with no unsupervised visitation by the husband. Meanwhile, the husband is saying that he would be PERFECTLY satisfied with 50 - 50 custody. He seems reasonable, sober, and accommodating. The upshot? The majority of abusing husbands end up with complete custody! And, you expect reasonable treatment when bringing you yacht back across the border? There's no question to me that common sense and the law do not always go together. I'm not a lawyer, but I think that if I were, I'd much rather be arguing on the side of what the law actually says. That's the point I was trying to make before my "profound ignorance" was pointed out to me by our resident counselor. |
Homeland Security vs. Common Sense
Wayne B. wrote:
There's no question to me that common sense and the law do not always go together. I'm not a lawyer, but I think that if I were, I'd much rather be arguing on the side of what the law actually says. Since lawyers write all the laws (and they are generally written purposefully to be as verbose and obtuse as possible - just look at the tax laws), generally only those lawyers understand what they wrote. That is one reason why we can have so many judges so easily misinterpret those laws. So why would anyone expect someone in customs or the Coast Guard to understand what most judges can't? |
Homeland Security vs. Common Sense
holding out for complete custody
Hey, great another pathetic attempt to make a point by crying about those "poor children"! How utterly pathetic and COMPLETELY irrelevant to the argument at hand. |
Homeland Security vs. Common Sense
In short, I don't think this is really a "war
on terror" issue but a kind of timeless friction between customs officers and boaters... *Exactly* But some folks just want to blame homeland security or whatever elected officials are in office at the time, and it has nothing to do with them. |
Homeland Security vs. Common Sense
Wow!
(I think I'm enlightened but I'm not really sure.) -- Roger Long |
Homeland Security vs. Common Sense
"Dave" wrote in message ... On 22 Sep 2006 15:41:01 -0500, Dave said: When push comes to shove, "sensible" almost never enters into the discussion, only strict legal interpretation of what the law actually says. You display a profound ignorance of the way the legal system operates. On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 14:42:42 -0400, Wayne.B said: OK, please enlighten us. OK. I'll give you an example from an area of the law I'm familiar with. Back in 1933, after many months of hearings, the congress critters passed a law called the Securities Act of 1933. That law said it shall be unlawful to sell a security unless a registration statement is in effect as to that security. To register the security you must file a registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The registration statement becomes effective automatically on the 20th day after filing. Reading just the statute, you would think that you file a registration statement, and wait 20 days, and then sell the security. In the real world, that system simply wasn't workable. Probably fewer than one in 5,000 registration statements becomes effective automatically on the 20th day after filing. The SEC (or at that time, the FTC) and the people involved in the industry worked out a system that fit the real world. The system they devised was that when you file the initial registration statement you add a legend on the cover stating that the issuer amends the registration statement at such time as is necessary to prevent the registration statement from becoming effective until the SEC declares it effective by order. Then the issuer and the SEC work out their differences as to what the registration statement will say, and when they have agreed the issuer asks the SEC to issue an order making the registration statement effective. In the real world, if you were to file a registration statement without that legend, you would immediately get a call from the SEC suggesting that you add the legend. If you refused to do so, you would very shortly get an order from the SEC suspending the effectiveness of the registration statement -- i.e. making it illegal for you to sell using that registration statement. There are in fact a few instances where a registration statement becomes effective without an SEC order. Sometimes the lawyers for the issuer decide that the SEC staff is simply wrong in the changes it is asking for, and that if they were to try to get a stop order from the full Commission on that issue they would fail. Under those circumstances, you might file an amendment to the registration statement removing the legend calling for a delay in the effective date, and the registration statement would become effective 20 days after filing that amendment. Effectively they are calling the SEC's staff's bluff. (I believe I have done that once or perhaps twice in over 30 years.) My point is that you can't simply draw conclusions based on what some statute says. Many of the most critical judgments involved in enforcing the statute are made by an administrative agency, and some agencies are far more effective than others in creating a legal scheme that makes sense. I think selling marijuanna works much the same way, 'cept you never get your certificate so you're always illegal. ;-) |
Homeland Security vs. Common Sense
On 24 Sep 2006 14:40:03 -0500, Dave wrote:
My point is that you can't simply draw conclusions based on what some statute says. Many of the most critical judgments involved in enforcing the statute are made by an administrative agency, and some agencies are far more effective than others in creating a legal scheme that makes sense. Interesting. |
Homeland Security vs. Common Sense
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:16 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com