6 ms·

Luckily, the borders in this case are porous enough that it doesn't seem like a big issue. In one case in North America [1] it lead to some property owners bein

Luckily, the borders in this case are porous enough that it doesn't seem like a big issue. In one case in North America [1] it lead to some property owners being essentially under house arrest during the hours that the border crossings are closed, and at least one real arrest. 1: http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-incredible-complications-of-living-atop-the-us-canada-border http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-incredible-complica...

ocdtrekkie 10y ago
It's hard to understand in these sorts of situations why an exchange of land isn't made. Especially in the case of Estcourt Station, where there are zero year-round residents, and the cost of maintaining this is a staffed border station, postal service, and potential police service. I know countries generally get iffy about giving up borders, but why would the US want to keep this? Are they obligated to because someone owns land there? It feels like at least some sort of agreement to place that small parcel of land under the management of the Canadian authorities or something would save hundreds of thousands of dollars in the long run.
- lagadu 10y ago
  The problem isn't completely innocuous stuff like this: the problem is setting a precedent when it comes to other international disputes, something the other country can point at once they go to the appropriate supra-national court. Establishing precedents in international scenarios can be pretty risky.
  - ghaff 10y ago
    Pretty much. The US and Canada aren't going to go to war over Machias Seal Island [1] for example although there are some (relatively minor) competing interests related to lobstering. But if one side or the other backs down on this, someday there will be an important dispute with a fact pattern that looks a lot like the unimportant one. Keeping a border patrol station and post office open is pretty cheap insurance. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machias_Seal_Island https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machias_Seal_Island
    - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
      I don't understand how me giving you a gift establishes a precedent for you to unilaterally take my stuff.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - caf 10y ago
    So you establish a treaty in which the parcel of land in question is sold for some nominal figure. That wouldn't be establishing a new precedent, such purchases have happened already.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - mcv 10y ago
    How is this a court-relevant precedent? And for what court exactly? We're talking about giving up land voluntarily because it costs too much. There's plenty of precedent for countries giving up land in various ways.
PhasmaFelis 10y ago
I wonder what it feels like to know that your job is 100% completely useless, especially for police/security people who probably had some notion, at some point, of protecting people. Do you get depressed? Fatalistic? Just say "eh, it's a living"? Or do you construct elaborate justifications for why stopping people crossing the street after 5pm actually matters? I suspect it's the latter, given that someone was apparently imprisoned for a month for the crime of going to the gas station after hours. Someone with a badge and a gun actually, consciously decided that that was vital to the security of the United States. That's depressing in itself.

ocdtrekkie 10y ago

It's hard to understand in these sorts of situations why an exchange of land isn't made. Especially in the case of Estcourt Station, where there are zero year-round residents, and the cost of maintaining this is a staffed border station, postal service, and potential police service. I know countries generally get iffy about giving up borders, but why would the US want to keep this? Are they obligated to because someone owns land there? It feels like at least some sort of agreement to place that small parcel of land under the management of the Canadian authorities or something would save hundreds of thousands of dollars in the long run.

lagadu 10y ago
The problem isn't completely innocuous stuff like this: the problem is setting a precedent when it comes to other international disputes, something the other country can point at once they go to the appropriate supra-national court. Establishing precedents in international scenarios can be pretty risky.
- ghaff 10y ago
  Pretty much. The US and Canada aren't going to go to war over Machias Seal Island [1] for example although there are some (relatively minor) competing interests related to lobstering. But if one side or the other backs down on this, someday there will be an important dispute with a fact pattern that looks a lot like the unimportant one. Keeping a border patrol station and post office open is pretty cheap insurance. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machias_Seal_Island https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machias_Seal_Island
  - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
    I don't understand how me giving you a gift establishes a precedent for you to unilaterally take my stuff.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- caf 10y ago
  So you establish a treaty in which the parcel of land in question is sold for some nominal figure. That wouldn't be establishing a new precedent, such purchases have happened already.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- mcv 10y ago
  How is this a court-relevant precedent? And for what court exactly? We're talking about giving up land voluntarily because it costs too much. There's plenty of precedent for countries giving up land in various ways.

PhasmaFelis 10y ago

I wonder what it feels like to know that your job is 100% completely useless, especially for police/security people who probably had some notion, at some point, of protecting people. Do you get depressed? Fatalistic? Just say "eh, it's a living"? Or do you construct elaborate justifications for why stopping people crossing the street after 5pm actually matters? I suspect it's the latter, given that someone was apparently imprisoned for a month for the crime of going to the gas station after hours. Someone with a badge and a gun actually, consciously decided that that was vital to the security of the United States. That's depressing in itself.