Moving boat out of Canada to US

[Mike OReilly]

It's always dismaying to see people here encouraging the disregard for other nations' laws. You may not agree with them, but if you have the privileged of being allowed into a foreign country, the least you can do is follow their rules and laws.

I certainly don't agree with all the laws in the USA, but I have the decency and basic respect to follow them when I've visited.

Cruisers who think they have some sort of g-d given right to ignore the laws of other lands ruin it for everyone. They leave a dirty wake for the rest of us. If you can't follow the laws, stay home. Period.

[Macblaze]

Originally Posted by IslandInfedel

Lol binocular Karens

I was going to let this go, really I was. But I feel like I might have been insulted and I think it behooves me to actually be at least mildly cognizant of the intended aspersion.

1. I called you an American, indeed very American. Something most of you are proud of. You reply with an "insult." Now even though I particularly don't want to be an American or indeed be associated overly with American values, I am a tad puzzled why you found it insulting. A serious head scratcher. Unless me acknowledging that made you uncomfortable somehow? If so, sorry...

2. I get the "karen" reference. I am a bit confused as to how it applies. Am I railing against something (except maybe perceived American privilege) from a position of privilege? I admit to being a white male, so I guess that does automatically nudge me over into that category, but I didn't think it was relevant in this case. Going back to the karen thing, in my books the current accepted definition actually implies that the recipient of my "ire" against "perceived American privilege" is the karen, not me. But then again, karen-ness has been evolving. Perhaps it now encompasses people who are irritated with other people who resemble karens. Sort of a meta-karen?

3. binocular? Perhaps a reference to "binocular vision?... "Vision in which both eyes are used synchronously to produce a single image." Google wasn't much help with this. No, maybe it's more of a "blinkered" thing. Not being able to see more than one side of the argument? If that is the case—putting aside the irony—I would respond that I do indeed see this issue solely from one perspective: that of a Canadian citizen, invested in our sovereignty and not all that sympathetic to attacks or threats to it.

And as a side note as I would really, really like it if some of my American boater friends could come back to Canada, I think most of the suggestions to "cheat", "finagle" or "barracks lawyer" one's way around the current rules are counterproductive at best and downright immoral at worst. It just ain't gonna help.


Ok. done now. I promise.

And yes, I do have too much time on my hands.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

I've seen similar comments by a few but it doesn't jive with the Canadians we know. We know a fair number of Canadians (living within 50 miles of the border) and the majority have told us, they want the border to open but the government has decided it will remain closed for now.



So there was a unanimous vote by "the people"? Was there even a vote with 75% of the people wanting it closed?



Maybe it's a difference between:



Canadians who live 300-400 miles from the border and rarely cross anyway, so they really don't care if the border opens

Vs

Those living near the border who actually may want to cross and it impacts their lives on a regular basis.

Mid-July poll of 1000 Canadians indicated right about 8 in 10 want border closed until end of year.

https://globalnews.ca/news/7185471/u...onavirus-poll/

Anecdotal evidence doesn’t cut it.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by IslandInfedel

...
And no. It was the government, there was no vote.

Representative government on both sides of the border. Past a certain size true democracy doesn’t work.

[IslandInfedel]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

It's always dismaying to see people here encouraging the disregard for other nations' laws. You may not agree with them, but if you have the privileged of being allowed into a foreign country, the least you can do is follow their rules and laws.

I certainly don't agree with all the laws in the USA, but I have the decency and basic respect to follow them when I've visited.

Cruisers who think they have some sort of g-d given right to ignore the laws of other lands ruin it for everyone. They leave a dirty wake for the rest of us. If you can't follow the laws, stay home. Period.

If that was my position I would have said just walk across the border in the woods and go get your boat

Everything I said was based on the governments own silly rules.

Nothing was breaking the law.

Originally Posted by Macblaze

I was going to let this go, really I was. But I feel like I might have been insulted and I think it behooves me to actually be at least mildly cognizant of the intended aspersion.

1. I called you an American, indeed very American. Something most of you are proud of. You reply with an "insult." Now even though I particularly don't want to be an American or indeed be associated overly with American values, I am a tad puzzled why you found it insulting. A serious head scratcher. Unless me acknowledging that made you uncomfortable somehow? If so, sorry...

2. I get the "karen" reference. I am a bit confused as to how it applies. Am I railing against something (except maybe perceived American privilege) from a position of privilege? I admit to being a white male, so I guess that does automatically nudge me over into that category, but I didn't think it was relevant in this case. Going back to the karen thing, in my books the current accepted definition actually implies that the recipient of my "ire" against "perceived American privilege" is the karen, not me. But then again, karen-ness has been evolving. Perhaps it now encompasses people who are irritated with other people who resemble karens. Sort of a meta-karen?

3. binocular? Perhaps a reference to "binocular vision?... "Vision in which both eyes are used synchronously to produce a single image." Google wasn't much help with this. No, maybe it's more of a "blinkered" thing. Not being able to see more than one side of the argument? If that is the case—putting aside the irony—I would respond that I do indeed see this issue solely from one perspective: that of a Canadian citizen, invested in our sovereignty and not all that sympathetic to attacks or threats to it.

And as a side note as I would really, really like it if some of my American boater friends could come back to Canada, I think most of the suggestions to "cheat", "finagle" or "barracks lawyer" one's way around the current rules are counterproductive at best and downright immoral at worst. It just ain't gonna help.


Ok. done now. I promise.

And yes, I do have too much time on my hands.

Don’t play games, you said the American comment as a clear insult, own it.
I am very proud to be a citizen of the richest and most free country on earth, a country who has put itself in harms way to rescue other nations more than any other, one who gives more money as well as blood to help others compared to any other, one which waged war to free black slaves, one of the only western countries to have elected a black leader, and I offer zero apologies for it


The Karen thing, I just find the type of person who would be sitting with binoculars to rat sailboats out to the government, well I find it both historically concerning from a freedoms standpoint, as well as just sad from a smaller scale “do you really have nothing better to do” standpoint.

Congrats on catching a typo, I guess?





Again, I said nothing about breaking a law, I simply stated the fact that crossing is simply a box checking exercise for the guards, find a box you can fit in and make your life, and the guards life, much easier.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by Macblaze

I was going to let this go, really I was. But I feel like I might have been insulted and I think it behooves me to actually be at least mildly cognizant of the intended aspersion.



1. I called you an American, indeed very American. Something most of you are proud of. You reply with an "insult." Now even though I particularly don't want to be an American or indeed be associated overly with American values, I am a tad puzzled why you found it insulting. A serious head scratcher. Unless me acknowledging that made you uncomfortable somehow? If so, sorry...



2. I get the "karen" reference. I am a bit confused as to how it applies. Am I railing against something (except maybe perceived American privilege) from a position of privilege? I admit to being a white male, so I guess that does automatically nudge me over into that category, but I didn't think it was relevant in this case. Going back to the karen thing, in my books the current accepted definition actually implies that the recipient of my "ire" against "perceived American privilege" is the karen, not me. But then again, karen-ness has been evolving. Perhaps it now encompasses people who are irritated with other people who resemble karens. Sort of a meta-karen?



3. binocular? Perhaps a reference to "binocular vision?... "Vision in which both eyes are used synchronously to produce a single image." Google wasn't much help with this. No, maybe it's more of a "blinkered" thing. Not being able to see more than one side of the argument? If that is the case—putting aside the irony—I would respond that I do indeed see this issue solely from one perspective: that of a Canadian citizen, invested in our sovereignty and not all that sympathetic to attacks or threats to it.



And as a side note as I would really, really like it if some of my American boater friends could come back to Canada, I think most of the suggestions to "cheat", "finagle" or "barracks lawyer" one's way around the current rules are counterproductive at best and downright immoral at worst. It just ain't gonna help.





Ok. done now. I promise.



And yes, I do have too much time on my hands.

The way I read the Binocular Karens is that he/she was making a dig at the Canadian using binos to watch for US boats coming across the border and reporting them to Canadian immigration. It wasn’t aimed at you.

Question is would he make the same dig at US citizens reporting Central American immigrants coming over the border with Mexico?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by IslandInfedel

If that was my position I would have said just walk across the border in the woods and go get your boat

Everything I said was based on the governments own silly rules.

Nothing was breaking the law.

Crossing the border by lying about going to Alaska, or pretending to get lasik surgery, with the actual intention of retrieving a boat, is breaking the law. This shouldn't be hard to understand.

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by IslandInfedel

You think the US is going to deny a US citizen entry?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Lol binocular Karens

Yes, the Fearless Leader is trying to do just that.

Karens are people who are "outing" other people for doing things that are legal: like BBQ-ing while black Oakland and Central Park NYC), or pulling guns on peaceful protesters (St. Louis).

A person who is trying to identify people doing ILLEGAL things is NOT a Karen.

At least get your definitions straight.

[Macblaze]

Originally Posted by Adelie

The way I read the Binocular Karens is that he/she was making a dig at the Canadian using binos to watch for US boats coming across the border and reporting them to Canadian immigration. It wasn’t aimed at you.

Oh. Oops

[taxwizz]

Find an Indian to move it.
There is no border for them, and they pass freely.

[IslandInfedel]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Crossing the border by lying about going to Alaska, or pretending to get lasik surgery, with the actual intention of retrieving a boat, is breaking the law. This shouldn't be hard to understand.

It’s not a lie

If you book a consult for a procedure and go to that consult, there is no lie

There is also nothing against the law about changing your travel plans.
Or, if it makes one feel better, go sail up to ketchikan for dinner, then cross back into Canada under traveling back to the mainland

Originally Posted by Adelie

The way I read the Binocular Karens is that he/she was making a dig at the Canadian using binos to watch for US boats coming across the border and reporting them to Canadian immigration. It wasn’t aimed at you.

Question is would he make the same dig at US citizens reporting Central American immigrants coming over the border with Mexico?

Well there is nothing illegal about a sailboat with a US hailing port being in Canadian waters, there are more probable legal reasons it could be there than illegal ones.

Per someone jumping the southern fence, there are very few legal reasons someone would cross the border in that manner, apples to grapefruits

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

Yes, the Fearless Leader is trying to do just that.

Karens are people who are "outing" other people for doing things that are legal: like BBQ-ing while black Oakland and Central Park NYC), or pulling guns on peaceful protesters (St. Louis).

A person who is trying to identify people doing ILLEGAL things is NOT a Karen.

At least get your definitions straight.

Per the St Louis thing, you forgot to put quotes on “peaceful protestors”

“Fearless Leader”odd way to say the president, if that’s who youre talking about, also zero facts back that up


Again, it is fully legal to go up there for a medical reason, fully legal to go up there to go to Alaska (and I see no legal requirement that says you can’t turn back).
It’s a odd position to say I’m advocating doing something illegal, when the things I mention are off the governments own silly list of legal reasons to cross, a list I also posted.

[mitiempo]

Many BC businesses are refusing to serve US citizens "on their way to Alaska".
The border is closed and will hopefully be so until the end of this year - or longer.

If you cheat to cross you should be quarantined - maybe in a cell. Obey the law.

Call a professional skipper to move the boat. They can and are doing this without quarantine.

Try Vern Lhotsky at 250-727-8667
I called. He is actually moving a boat right now but says it can be done.

[GregW1309]

I used Allied boat transport , located in Marysville wa, from Virginia to Anacortes. They did a great job, no damage at all. Give them a call. tel:3606511300

[IslandInfedel]

Originally Posted by mitiempo

Many BC businesses are refusing to serve US citizens "on their way to Alaska".
The border is closed and will hopefully be so until the end of this year - or longer.

If you cheat to cross you should be quarantined - maybe in a cell. Obey the law.

Call a professional skipper to move the boat. They can and are doing this without quarantine.

Try Vern Lhotsky at 250-727-8667
I called. He is actually moving a boat right now but says it can be done.

Their business their rules, also in these economic times...bold economic strategy lol

If you check the box it’s not illegal or “cheating”

So the “professional skipper” is immune to the virus?

If we are going to go with the spirit of this nonsense, this is without logic, having the OP get his boat and sail it home is as much a health hazard as having some other human do it.
Heck, one could argue having a non traveling person, say a work at home type, make one trip to get their own boat is better health wise compared to having a person who is always traveling do it.

Second, law wise, it’s just as legal for him to cross and get his boat checking one of the boxes I linked to, as it is to pay some random guy to do it for him.

Morally, ethically, legally, what you said doesn’t really seem to hold water

The only thing it does is make things more complicated and expensive for people, and I have yet to see proper studies that show increasing stress and decreasing ones bank account cures any virus.

[Macblaze]

Originally Posted by IslandInfedel

Second, law wise, it’s just as legal for him to cross and get his boat checking one of the boxes I linked to, as it is to pay some random guy to do it for him.

I can't help myself.

No. It. Is. Not. Legal.

You U.S. law sources do not apply. If he comes up, he goes into 2 week quarantine. And he better have a legitimate reason for wanting to come. It should go without saying the lying is not a legitimate reason. Saying it isn't so does not make it so. On top of that he has already been denied entry. Do you suppose they didn't make a note of that somewhere?