US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has what’s known as the Preclearance program, whereby US-bound travelers can clear customs and immigration prior to boarding their US-bound flight from select international airports.
The biggest market for these Preclearance facilities is Canada, where all major airports have such a facility. Canada is also the biggest inbound tourism market for the United States, and we’ve seen a huge reduction in the number of visitors from Canada to the United States this year. That brings us to some interesting comments that were just made.
In this post:
US threatens to “take a look” at Preclearance facilities
Pete Hoekstra, the United States Ambassador to Canada, recently addressed the Global Business Forum in Banff, Alberta. The topic of US Preclearance facilities came up, in the context of a reduction of tourism from Canada to the United States. Hoekstra said the following:
“Preclearance is something that is done at the expense of the US government. Which, if you can’t make the numbers work anymore, you’re all business people, you know what that means.”
Former Canadian Diplomat Colin Robertson (who worked at the Canadian Embassy in Washington) confronted Hoekstra about these comments, and here’s how that went down:
“We’re your biggest source of tourism, if you end Preclearance, doesn’t that cut off your nose to spite your face?”
“Nobody said we were ending Preclearance, don’t put words in my mouth. These are all business people. Why is it unfair for me to say this thing within the relationship between Canada and the US has changed dramatically, and as a result, the United States has to take a look at it?”
The discussion went even further downhill when Robertson said that he hoped “the president is well informed” about the state of the relationship between the United States and Canada, and Hoekstra lashed out at him, saying “you don’t hear Americans talking about our disagreements with Canadian politicians and saying they’re uninformed,” and “we have the highest respect with Canadian politicians.”
To that, Robertson responded by saying “we don’t have anything you want, you got no cards, that, to me, is uninformed” (in reference to comments that had been made by Trump).
What can we make of US Preclearance comments?
Oy, I was under the impression that typically these kinds of business forums are intended to improve relations and trade between countries, rather than make them worse, but it doesn’t seem like a whole lot positive came from this. There are a few things I find most noteworthy about the interaction.
First of all, it’s interesting how Hoekstra claims that the US pays for the Preclearance facility. Based on my understanding, that’s only partially correct. Yes, the US pays for staffing officers there, but the actual build-out of the facility, and all the Canadian officials conducting security, are at Canada’s expense.
Second of all, it’s funny how Hoekstra brings up the possibility of not being able to “make the numbers work” anymore, but then gets super defensive when it’s pointed out that this suggests the facilities might be cut. If he’s not suggesting that the facilities be closed down, then what is he suggesting?
Sure, of course maybe staffing should be updated a little, but that’s an internal thing, and hardly something worth bringing up in a business forum. Airports constantly change how staff are allocated based on demand, so I can’t imagine that was the intent.
I struggle to interpret this any way other than a veiled threat that if tourism continues to decline, Preclearance could be ended. Of course the irony in all of this is that even with Canada’s reduced numbers, there are non-Canadian airports with a lot fewer flights that still have Preclearance facilities, and we don’t see any threats being made there.
Bottom line
The US Ambassador to Canada told business leaders in Banff that the US might not be able to make the numbers work on Preclearance anymore, and “you know what that means.” But when it was suggested that he was hinting at cutting these facilities, he became super defensive. So make of all of this what you’d like, but I do find those comments to be pretty noteworthy.
What do you make of these comments, and what do you think the US Ambassador was suggesting?
Bty, Canada is not the only place that has US CBP pre-clearance facility. Aruba has it too, as well as some place in Levant. And Dublin and Shannon in Ireland have it right now. And for those of you who remember traveling in the old days, Frankfurt used to have it too. The only reason why there are flights from Canada to LaGuardia Regional airport in New York is that it gets precleared in canada....
Bty, Canada is not the only place that has US CBP pre-clearance facility. Aruba has it too, as well as some place in Levant. And Dublin and Shannon in Ireland have it right now. And for those of you who remember traveling in the old days, Frankfurt used to have it too. The only reason why there are flights from Canada to LaGuardia Regional airport in New York is that it gets precleared in canada. Otherwise no flights. LGW doesn't have CBP assigned. Large portion of people who benefits from CBP preclearance are American citizens and other permanent residents.
Close them all. We don't need them.
"You've got a nice preclearance facility. Be a shame of something happened to it."
The unnerving thing is that one doesn't feel confident that important decisions are mostly in the hands of well-informed people. I'm sure I'm alone in this, but I don't feel it's a good look.
Hegseth
Miller
Hoekstra
Leavitt
Bondi
Kennedy
Don't forget key administration advisor Laura Loomer, who said that America was built solely by white people of European descent and brown people need to be expelled from the country. (On a side note, I wonder how Canadian indigenous people feel about the evolution of the "relationship.")
Kofefe
Please...stop the pre clearance. Why would Canadians even agree to American pre clearance where they can be detained on Canadian soil by American Gestapo pre clearance agents?
You can’t be detained only denied. You have a choice to leave at any time .
Hoekstra is a gas lighting windbag....much like his Gestapo boss!
Another maga white-supremacy hire embarassing the US on the global stage
I don't know if he's a white supremacist. But he seems genuinely surprised by pushback in any context. And genuinely baffled by Canadians' anger at the behaviour of the White House.
He seems to believe that the solution is for the battered wife to suck up more.
At the outset, before Open Skies and airline alliances, pre clearance benefitted U.S. carriers more than Canadian carriers, because it allowed them to seamlessly connect traffic via their U.S. hubs to hundreds of destinations, whereas Canadian carriers could generally fly only point to point to a limited number of U.S. destinations. In the 1970’s, it was Canada that threatened to shut down pre-clearance to put pressure on the U.S. to be more forthcoming with traffic...
At the outset, before Open Skies and airline alliances, pre clearance benefitted U.S. carriers more than Canadian carriers, because it allowed them to seamlessly connect traffic via their U.S. hubs to hundreds of destinations, whereas Canadian carriers could generally fly only point to point to a limited number of U.S. destinations. In the 1970’s, it was Canada that threatened to shut down pre-clearance to put pressure on the U.S. to be more forthcoming with traffic rights in the bilateral negotiations. That’s less true these days, but I doubt AA/DL/UA which have some of the most effective lobbyists in Washington would sit still for any lessening of pre-clearance.
Also, pre-clearance enhances the ability of Homeland Security to do its job, which is obviously a priority of the current administration, because any inadmissible pax and contraband is intercepted before ever entering U.S. territory.
No disrespect to the ambassador, but it’s pretty evident his off the cuff remarks are much ado about nothing.
Hoeskstra should be expelled by Canada.
@Timmy Dunn - why do you think PreClearance benefits AC more than US carriers? I beg to differ. How will your beloved DL operate to LGA? There is no customs facility there.
It would force all ORD arrivals into Terminal 5 for Customs/Immigration processing. This is efficient for an ERJ-145 that now has to be towed over to UA gates for a domestic departure?
Same at many US...
Hoeskstra should be expelled by Canada.
@Timmy Dunn - why do you think PreClearance benefits AC more than US carriers? I beg to differ. How will your beloved DL operate to LGA? There is no customs facility there.
It would force all ORD arrivals into Terminal 5 for Customs/Immigration processing. This is efficient for an ERJ-145 that now has to be towed over to UA gates for a domestic departure?
Same at many US airports - forcing US regional carriers inbound from Canada to use Customs/Immigration gates. Brilliant move.
Timmy - this would force all DL regionals into ATL customs - how is that efficient?
I just cleared YYZ preclearance on Tuesday morning - the entire process took less than 5 minutes.
Timmy - Be careful what you wish for. The damage to US carriers is much higher than it is to AC. Now go back to your Room!
clearly, I am capable of realizing that there are hits to US carriers including DL.
and tell us how many passengers each airline carries in the NYC to Toronto market by airport
but you still can't grasp that I have said repeatedly that reduced numbers of passengers doesn't necessarily mean that pre-clearance will or should be eliminated but that it might not be justified at as many airports as have it now.
Do try harder to read what is written.
its embarrassing how little you know and yet you keep typing. let us know why you were fired please.
US pre-clearance is not for the benefit and convenience of incoming travellers from other countries. It is designed to stop illegal immigrants before they reach the US, preferably at source. A US official once likened it to defending the End Zone from the half way line in NFL terminology. Hence, most such facilities are in Ireland, South Korea and Abu Dhabi, places from which a lot of illegal immigration began. Admittedly, the Canada facilities are...
US pre-clearance is not for the benefit and convenience of incoming travellers from other countries. It is designed to stop illegal immigrants before they reach the US, preferably at source. A US official once likened it to defending the End Zone from the half way line in NFL terminology. Hence, most such facilities are in Ireland, South Korea and Abu Dhabi, places from which a lot of illegal immigration began. Admittedly, the Canada facilities are probably more for convenience but a lot of illegal immigrants come via Canada. Given the high volume of passengers historically from Canada to the US, it made sense to locate US immigration officers at major Canadian airports rather than at smaller US locations like Kansas City and St. Louis, for example.
South Korea has never had a preclearance facility. There was a discussion but declined by Korean authorities later.
Also, there isn't and have never been any preclearance facility in the entire East Asia.
I do with there was one in Japan and Korea. Thankfully with GE landing in Los Angeles isn't a huge pain
As Ben points out, the US incurs only personnel costs. And, given X number of people entering, the US needs a certain number of agents. If they are pulled from one location, they'll be needed in another location. Like squeezing a water balloon. There isn't any cost savings. The purpose of the program is to diffuse peak demand at arrival cities.
incorrect.
Foreign based agents cost more than those in the US.
Source, vs making stuff up out of thin air that is your normal purview
(Rumor has it DL pre-abandoning LAXHKG btw)
Trivial difference for this argument.
and yet you said there was no cost difference.
There clearly is.
The US pays foreign based employees more just as most companies do.
Good. We do so much for them and they never thank us. The Canadians have threatened and lectured many times and prefer having an unelected King to an elected President. I don’t mind but their future is deeply tied with America not with Europe simple as that.
I am fed up of their arrogance and ignorance towards us. More respect required.
The new US King is far more an authoritarian than the Canadian PM. Douche.
"More respect required" or else what? We can't visit the Shining City On The Hill any more?
I absolutely hate the preclearance. In forces me to wait in a restricted area of the airport with few services and often no lounges. Global entry is infinitely better. So I for one would love them to be eliminated.
correct.
I can consistently get through a US arrival facility in 5 minutes with Global Entry.
EVERYONE spends far more time getting to an airport with precheck early
and let's also not forget that the US is testing no-bag claim on some flights arriving in the US because certain foreign governments are sharing baggage screening images w/ CBP.
Precheck was a good idea - 10 years ago.
So Alan and Tim are discriminating against people who couldn't pay for GE.
I'm sorry - what exactly do you think has changed in the last 10 years to make it now a bad idea?
Even if the math isn't working out right now because of a drop in inbound Canadian tourism, that is probably temporary.
So, when did you say are the "Next" Presidential elections? Trump is making Nixon look like an Angel!
What elections? If the midterms don’t go his way he will concoct some emergency to cancel the next POTUS elections. Seeing the deployment of his paramilitary and the army to US cities, his game plan is obvious.
I thought pre clearance was more for the benefits of citizens and residents not foreign visitors.
I think enough is enough and Mr Hoekstra needs to be removed from his position. In my entire life, I have never witnessed such a combative and ignorant American ambassador. He brings nothing to his position and has no idea how to calm the tensions between our countries. A child could do a better job.
There is a through line here and with almost everything this Administration is doing with respect to other countries: the goal always seems to be to gradually but steadily isolate us from the rest of the world. Some may cheer that--I personally lament it--but the effect is so consistent that it's hard to believe it's not intentional.
Here’s hoping we get EVERYTHING we voted for. If we are so stupid as to think Canada gives a rat’s a@@ about whether or not we have preclearance there we are as dumb as the people we voted in.
MAGA is a terrorist organization.
more threats and bullying from the professional bullies.
Ben is correct in saying that only the actual United States Customs and Border Protection people are paid by the US government. Everything else is paid for by Canadian authorities.
Your first sentence is only half true. You left out the part that the US government collects nontrivial fess from every passenger flying to/thru the US, to recoup those costs. US Border officers in Canadian airports are paid for by the passengers they inspect. Have a look at the line items on your next ticket. If your start-in-Canada itinerary touches USA in any way, there are at least 4 charges payable to US government entities.
Cornelis Pieter Hoekstra, another dim, dusty bulb in the grimy, cobweb-laden chandelier of American gerontocracy.
I'm not saying this administration would never do something so self-defeating. I'm just saying it would be self-defeating.
It's an amusing mental exercise to consider what it would look like if all US Pre-Clearance in Canada were scrapped. Anyone who opines in favour of it, or who claims it wouldn't do great harm, hasn't done the exercise.
The chief beneficiary of the Pre-Clearance regime is USA. Just imagine if every AA DL UA flight originating...
I'm not saying this administration would never do something so self-defeating. I'm just saying it would be self-defeating.
It's an amusing mental exercise to consider what it would look like if all US Pre-Clearance in Canada were scrapped. Anyone who opines in favour of it, or who claims it wouldn't do great harm, hasn't done the exercise.
The chief beneficiary of the Pre-Clearance regime is USA. Just imagine if every AA DL UA flight originating in Canada dumped its pax into the normal Immigration facilities in US airports; Canadians don't need visas or ETSAs and the volume of people is greater than any other originating country, so how's that gonna look in MCO MIA LGA ORD LAX SFO DFW IAD? Vast queues of the lowest-risk entrants imaginable. That's new loads, added to whatever queues exist today.
It's just silly to even think that Pre-Clearance is a service the US government provides to Canadians. They provide it because the alternative would infuriate American stakeholders including pax, carriers, airport entities, security services.
And let's not pretend the money comes from the American taxpayer. Have a look at all the fees on an air ticket (points or cash) originating in Canada, to/thru the USA. When I talk to your Homeland Security officer, I pay in full for the privilege.
The US provides pre-clearance because there WAS a mutual benefit.
There are multiple expedited immigration processes for Americans and Canadians; I can enter the US faster with Global Entry than I can doing pre-clearance which requires getting to the airport well before my flight in Canada. When I am at the end of the trip, I clear and go home.
and, since you want to throw in the cost, it costs the US more...
The US provides pre-clearance because there WAS a mutual benefit.
There are multiple expedited immigration processes for Americans and Canadians; I can enter the US faster with Global Entry than I can doing pre-clearance which requires getting to the airport well before my flight in Canada. When I am at the end of the trip, I clear and go home.
and, since you want to throw in the cost, it costs the US more per passenger to pre-clear passengers outside of the US than it does to do it on US soil. The reason why the US has expanded pre-clearance to other countries is for increased security.
and you still miss the point that, even if the program as a whole works, it is absolutely valid to say that there are more pre-clearance sites than are needed given the reduced volume of passengers.
It is absolutely a reality and one which the US government should address that if the amount of passengers is falling - heavily because Canadians do not want to come to the US for tourism - then it makes sense to scale back the program.
The world is not all black and white but with many shades of gray
"Wow, we're seeing a big drop in visitors. Let's do something."
Politician's logic:
Something must be done.
This is something.
Therefore we must do it.
Preclearance makes flights to US airports without immigration facilities possible, for example DCA and LGA. DCA has service to YYZ, YUL, and YOW. LGA has service to YYZ and YUL.
And, close advisor Laura Loomer (and so many others) has made it clear that the US should only be white.
"I can enter the US faster with Global Entry than I can doing pre-clearance which requires getting to the airport well before my flight in Canada. When I am at the end of the trip, I clear and go home."
What in God's name are you talking about. I've flown YYZ-EWR about 100 times and never once spent more than 5 minutes in line as they have global entry lanes. I'm pretty sure all preclearance Canadian airports do. There is no requirement to come any earlier.
“Canadians don’t need visas or ESTAs”… yet. Don’t underestimate the ability of Stephen Miller, who appears to be an angry descendent of Joseph Goebbels, to start declaring this arrangement a security threat and extort the Canadian government at threat of this being eliminated.
This isn't the first comment Hoekstra has made that was received by Canadians as tone deaf. Earlier he said he's disappointed in how Canadians have become more anti-American, as if it wasn't in response to anything the US has done: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/us-ambassador-to-canada-disappointed-anti-american-campaign-1.7637534
In the previous Trump administration, Hoekstra was appointed as ambassador to The Netherlands (because of his Dutch heritage, I guess). Not a good choice. Believe me, tone deaf is his natural style.
There are good people on both sides...
Hoekstra has such a punchable face. His boss and all his cronies are taking their ugly American filth everywhere and making us hated. What a way to ruin a name with the country we share close ties with and liberated the world with all those decades ago.
My heart especially breaks for those in Gander, Newfoundland, who provided comfort for stranded 9/11 passengers coming off several flights. What did they and other Canadians do to deserve this?
It's kind of you to weigh in like this. Here in Canada, what we see is Hoekstra, not you. I tell my compatriots that the majority of Americans have no enmity towards us and those who do, never even thought of Canada until the President told them what villains we are. Now his supporters act like they were always deeply concerned about us "ripping America off". Sheep.
May I suggest? No, actually I'll beg. Show...
It's kind of you to weigh in like this. Here in Canada, what we see is Hoekstra, not you. I tell my compatriots that the majority of Americans have no enmity towards us and those who do, never even thought of Canada until the President told them what villains we are. Now his supporters act like they were always deeply concerned about us "ripping America off". Sheep.
May I suggest? No, actually I'll beg. Show us you mean it by geting it done in the midterms. That's what you can do for us. And two years later, well, it goes without saying.
"We have the highest respect for Canadian politicians".
Maybe they shouldn't. "Elbows Up" Liberals have driven Canada into the ground, emigration is at an all time high, the economy is tanking. Canada deserves whatever it gets for voting in those goons in Ottawa for a Fourth(!?) time to finish off the country for good.
Oh please, what is PP going to do? Zip zero. He doesn't even a plan to confront Trump who would walk all over him.
Lol @Carney.
PP is a useless goon who xoildnt even keep his own seat.
He would sell us to Trump for magic beans fast
Emigration is not at an all-time in Canada. Untrue statement.
Unless of course you meant "immigration" which, since the election, has been reduced very significantly, to the country's economic detriment.
it's ansolutely true and all over the news: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/more-canadians-fleeing-country-ever-170814580.html
Maybe the orange boss should have kept his mouth shut, no?
This.
You know, I flew to Newark from Toronto Billy Bishop on Porter last year, and the customs/immigration wait was three times as long as the flight itself! I was unlucky enough to be stuck between many intercontinental flights waiting in the same lines.
So yes, travellers who go cross-border are the biggest beneficiaries of pre-clearance facilities.
Also the pre-clearance officers at Toronto Pearson are generally very kind with me over the years. It's a good...
You know, I flew to Newark from Toronto Billy Bishop on Porter last year, and the customs/immigration wait was three times as long as the flight itself! I was unlucky enough to be stuck between many intercontinental flights waiting in the same lines.
So yes, travellers who go cross-border are the biggest beneficiaries of pre-clearance facilities.
Also the pre-clearance officers at Toronto Pearson are generally very kind with me over the years. It's a good service regardless of the politics.
No the biggest beneficiaries are the US airports, US border facilities, US air carriers. A non-NEXUS passenger flying out of YYZ will wait a long time to be inspected, as they would if they were inspected upon arrival in ORD. Not much of a benefit for them. But at macro level, keeping all Canada-originating pax out of entry screening in US airports is a big gain for those operating those facilities. It's a break for...
No the biggest beneficiaries are the US airports, US border facilities, US air carriers. A non-NEXUS passenger flying out of YYZ will wait a long time to be inspected, as they would if they were inspected upon arrival in ORD. Not much of a benefit for them. But at macro level, keeping all Canada-originating pax out of entry screening in US airports is a big gain for those operating those facilities. It's a break for US law enforcement and ICE, which don't have to process people refused entry, a break for airlines who don't have to repatriate refused pax. Everyone working in the field of border control knows it's a benefit to the US. But the ambassador is a Trump ally and friend, whose mouth got him in trouble in his prevous posting and who I think sincerely doesn't understand any of this. "Nice Pre-Clearance you got there; shame if anything happened to it. Pay the vig"
Nailed it DenB!
Agree.
glad you covered this. It is a potentially big story.
the conversation was confrontational both ways.
There are not a whole lot of countries that have as many pre-clear facilities as the US has; it is costly and, more importantly, it benefits Air Canada far more than it benefits US airlines. In the context of larger trade issues, it is worth revisiting the value of the number of pre-clearance facilities the US has in Canada if not the entire concept.
“the conversation was confrontational both ways.”
BOTH SIDES!
Drink!
The US ambassador to Canada is a disgrace, and a stupid one at that. Just like the fascist Nazi regime for whom he works and whose lines he parrots.
I value being able to fly from Canada to LGA. Delta alone has something like ~6 flights from YYZ to LGA daily. It’s a real market that would not exist if preclearance did not exist.
Just silly all around.
I can understand how there is some benefit to airlines themselves for having preclearance (some routes become more attractive to potential customers, reduced risk of having to foot the bill for a return flight if someone gets denied entry) but isn't the outsize benefit of a system like this actually the traveling public and the countries themselves?
I imagine businesses on both sides are more willing to do more projects and send more people to...
I can understand how there is some benefit to airlines themselves for having preclearance (some routes become more attractive to potential customers, reduced risk of having to foot the bill for a return flight if someone gets denied entry) but isn't the outsize benefit of a system like this actually the traveling public and the countries themselves?
I imagine businesses on both sides are more willing to do more projects and send more people to countries where preclearance exists because it's more convenient for their employees to transit back and forth (considering here Canada's oil and natural resources sector and US company involvement). I would wager it's also good for tourism (more in the US) because it makes the journey simpler and more efficient.
Not all government services make tangible/measurable profit, but they enable value and growth in other industries.
"Not all government services make tangible/measurable profit..."
100% spot on.
Nor are they supposed to, nor were they ever supposed to. This whole "government should never lose money on x, y, or z" is right-wing nutjob bullshit made up to enable taking yet more money from the public to put into private hands. It's a scam.
And thus, TravelinWilly, we're $37 trillion in debt. If you're a tax payer, your share is about $300,000 at 4.25% interest, and you haven't made a net payment against the principal since the Clinton administation. This is the highest debt as a percent of GDP we've had since WWII, and puts us in a bad position to borrow should the next pandemic occur this winter, or we suffer a recession. If these TSA resources can...
And thus, TravelinWilly, we're $37 trillion in debt. If you're a tax payer, your share is about $300,000 at 4.25% interest, and you haven't made a net payment against the principal since the Clinton administation. This is the highest debt as a percent of GDP we've had since WWII, and puts us in a bad position to borrow should the next pandemic occur this winter, or we suffer a recession. If these TSA resources can be better used in the interest of the US in other locations for now, so be it. If Canada places a higher value on having those resources remain in Canada, they can increase their financial contribution to the pre-clearance system. No need for animus.
@Mark F
We're in debt because Americans rejected HW Bush after he made the hard decision to increase taxes to keep the deficit from growing, after promising in his campaign not to. We're in debt because Reagan, W Bush, and Trump were all rewarded by voters for slashing taxes, while simultaneously increasing spending. We CANNOT reduce the deficit without increasing taxes. Full stop.
I mostly agree with you, Dusty. Bush '41 did the right thing and suffered for it. It may have been an inflection point. EVERY president since has cut taxes too much, overspent, or both. The place I disagee is that I do think the Reagan tax breaks funded R&D that contributed to the rise of information technology (to the benefit of the economy, though not to our ability to be civil to one another).
@Mark F
The 1981 tax breaks didn't actually spur much in the way of economic growth, and it cut Federal revenue by about 9% for its first few years. The did blow up the deficit because it was supposed to be accompanied by corresponding spending cuts, but spending cuts never happened. Congress essentially reversed the 1981 cuts over about a decade, with both HW Bush and Clinton increasing taxes in '90 and '93. What...
@Mark F
The 1981 tax breaks didn't actually spur much in the way of economic growth, and it cut Federal revenue by about 9% for its first few years. The did blow up the deficit because it was supposed to be accompanied by corresponding spending cuts, but spending cuts never happened. Congress essentially reversed the 1981 cuts over about a decade, with both HW Bush and Clinton increasing taxes in '90 and '93. What did happen is that when the Fed cut interest rates (they had been at 20% due to the prior recession and stagflation from the '70s), the economy took off. Heavy additional spending on defense and highway construction helped that a lot as well. The second round of tax "cuts", the 1986 TRA, didn't so much cut taxes as shift the tax burden from individuals to companies.
At the end of the day, Republicans have a long history of pursuing supply-side "trickle down" economic policies despite those policies backfiring every time. Cutting taxes for corporations and the wealthy doesn't result in reinvesting that money into making new or better products, it pads the pockets of the c-suite and shareholders. Information technology was already well on the way thanks to university research and the National Science Foundation, not private company R&D divisions.
Not just Republicans...remember it was Kennedy who started off the process aswe paid down WWII debt by doing away with the max 91% individual tax bracket (down to 70%) and lowering the 52% corporate rate (48%). Trickle down works.....if the cuts are done in moderation and well targeted on counterproductive taxes. I continue to believe Reagan and Kennedy were right, but cuts have become just another way to buy votes, just like union pension bail-outs,...
Not just Republicans...remember it was Kennedy who started off the process aswe paid down WWII debt by doing away with the max 91% individual tax bracket (down to 70%) and lowering the 52% corporate rate (48%). Trickle down works.....if the cuts are done in moderation and well targeted on counterproductive taxes. I continue to believe Reagan and Kennedy were right, but cuts have become just another way to buy votes, just like union pension bail-outs, "community organization" funding, and individual benefits without a work/education requirement. The Founders wouldn't recognize our tax/spending "system".
False premise, Mark F. You're happy to discuss the cost of Pre-Clearance but you make no mention of the cost of doing without. Just because the former is easier to measure, doesn't mean it's greater than the latter.
DenB; I didn't argue for or against the present level of staffing, therefore there is no premise other than the TSA has a decision to make. If TSA feels their resources are better used elsewhere, they should shift personnel. If TSA is happy as is, leave things alone. I want them to be active stewards of our tax dollars.
Agreed with Tim, US ambassador is doing his job, if the Canadians hate the US so much, why are they worried about Pre-clearance.
*Canadians hate Trump and his administration, not the US and Americans so stop spreading BS propaganda.
This administration is full of the absolute dumbest, most awful people
And sadly a feckless, impotent opposition.
@DenB yeah, in many ways that's the real tragedy. it only gets worse from here because there is no opposition party.
@DenB
There's a lot the Democrats would like to be able to do. The problem is that unlike in a parliamentary system, the opposition party in the US is powerless if it does not control at least one house or branch of government. You'd see a lot more obstructionism if the Democrat party had a majority in either the House or Senate. They don't. And to make matters worse, anything a trial or appellate...
@DenB
There's a lot the Democrats would like to be able to do. The problem is that unlike in a parliamentary system, the opposition party in the US is powerless if it does not control at least one house or branch of government. You'd see a lot more obstructionism if the Democrat party had a majority in either the House or Senate. They don't. And to make matters worse, anything a trial or appellate court judge rules as illegal just gets overturned by SCOTUS fiat. US voters are the ones who put the opposition party in this situation, and now a lot of those voters are mad about it.