 Lewis Lukens |
Considering that Lewis Lukens is by occupation a diplomat – in his role as the U.S. consul-general now stationed at Vancouver, British Columbia – he used some words on Thursday that were remarkably guaranteed to outrage. They were provocative enough to almost seem intended to do so.
He was speaking on the United States side of the border at Bellingham, at the Western Washington University Border Policy Research Institute. The Institute’s mission is to develop “research that informs policy-makers on matters related to the Canada-U.S. border,” which is less than a half-hour away.
The subject of the moment is the “Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative” (WHTI), under which border crossings between the United States and neighboring countries will be tightened. In the case of U.S.-Canada crossings, that means among other things the impending requirement of a passport to cross. (At present, a valid driver’s license is sufficient.)
Of the policy that has been in force for several generations, that of a relatively open border, Lukens’ comment was that “We’ve been spoiled, there’s no doubt about it.” What exactly he means by suggesting that we’ve been “spoiled” by such good relations is unclear. How exactly should that change?
Not for him any further consideration of the matter: “Fighting WHTI is not going to help.â€
Which sounds like this: Now, now, children. The decision’s been made by the people who know best. Just sit down, keep quiet, get in line and don’t question our wisdom. He may have some familiarity with the mindset; just prior to his posting at Vancouver, he was executive secretary at the U.S. embassy at Baghdad, where his job was “managing the office that served as the nexus between policy and management issues in Iraq.”) Does he perhaps need a refresher course in where decisions ultimately are supposed to come from in a constitutional democracy – which is to say, not from the top?
The point here is not particularly arguing the border policy (is it necessarily irrational to require passports at any border? not necessarily) as it is to suggest that this is a reasonable topic of discussion, and that public servants have no business trying to shut down discussion of it by the people who pay their salaries.
And there is a reasonable argument here against WHTI.
Start with the history: For all that the U.S.-Canada border has been all but wide open for a very long time – many decades – the number of problems have been few. To the argument that some problems have emerged, we would suggest that the the they are balanced – likely heavily overweighed – by many advantages. It only begins with the travel, tourism, trade and commerce; it continues to the strong ties and friendship the countries, and many of the people in them, have had.
These are not small consideration. At the same Border Policy conference where Lukens spoke, Peter Lloyd, the Consul General of Canada, referred to a “thickening†of the border that increased requirements could create. That could do economic and business harm to both countries, he suggested. And more: “The consequences of not getting it right will be severe for both countries … Our shared history and friendship is not something that can be taken for granted.â€
He did not sound as if he was getting in line with the new order.
Neither have significant numbers of citizens, in each country. In Bellingham and other northern border areas, there’s been a persistant drumbeat against the new requirements, a key part of the reason Lukens was there to speak t the issue. The Bellingham Herald noted this bit of local reaction: “Bellingham immigration attorney Greg Boos challenged Lukens’ assertion that border communities won’t get relief in Congress. He observed that U.S. Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-NY, has received bipartisan backing for legislation that would force Homeland Security to slow down on imposing passport requirements. Lukens replied that Slaughter was one of many border area Congress members who voted for the original WHTI legislation.”
(But isn’t it more significant that she’s changed her position since then?)
We’d bet this issue isn’t over yet, mainly because the boss – us – hasn’t yet finished weighing in.
Share on Facebook
