19 ms·

The US-Canada border cuts through the Haskell Free Library and Opera House

125 points by greggarious 4y ago

TaylorAlexander 4y ago
It's interesting to see the efforts to lock down our once permeable borders succeeding in recent decades. It seems that for much of our history we had no issue with free passage across, but we have in my lifetime used the politics of fear to militarize our borders. Obviously some will disagree but this seems to me a regressive change.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- klyrs 4y ago
  Freedom of movement is tenuous, and one of the greater paradoxes of the modern "libertarian" movement. The freedom isn't even universally supported on the left -- democratic socialist countries rely on high taxes and low economic inequality to maintain their systems, which, the reasoning goes, is unsustainable in the face of an unrestricted influx of economic refugees.
  - serial_dev 4y ago
    > The freedom isn't even universally supported on the left It could be argued from a "leftist" position (whatever that means nowadays) that: it's mostly working class people that need to compete with immigrants. If the immigrants are undocumented or very poor, they are more likely to tolerate lower wages and unsafe working conditions, meaning that I (if I was a working class American) would have less negotiating power when it comes to my wages and work conditions, as there are plenty of people who would be happy to replace me. Also, working class people are more likely to meet with the immigrants that are engaged in illegal activities, whereas if you are middle-upper class or rich, you'll meet the educated, immigrants that maybe help your business growing or at the very least help you keep your household running. I'm just trying to show a different "leftist" take, I don't really have a strong opinion on this issue as I believe there are good people on both sides and figuring out the best approach is basically impossible.
    - rascul 4y ago
      > It could be argued from a "leftist" position (whatever that means nowadays) that: it's mostly working class people that need to compete with immigrants. If the immigrants are undocumented or very poor, they are more likely to tolerate lower wages and unsafe working conditions, meaning that I (if I was a working class American) would have less negotiating power when it comes to my wages and work conditions, as there are plenty of people who would be happy to replace me. That sounds very similar to the "they're stealing our jobs" argument I hear sometimes from people on the right.
      - adalacelove 4y ago
        And on a lot of countries the right has gained support within the working class
      - serial_dev 4y ago
        It might feel like a cosmetic nitpicking, but if I say they are "stealing our jobs", I'm blaming and vilifying the immigrants without wanting to understand their reasons for coming here and the unfortunate situation they are in. On the other hand, my ability to negotiate with the powerful owner class is strongly reduced if there are people that are willing to be exploited or simply don't have another choice due to their immigration status and poverty. It could be argued that more people coming in results in bad working conditions for both the immigrants and the working class, whereas the rich can take advantage of the situation and amass a fortune on the misfortune of the poor (both native and alien). Bernie Sanders, once a prominent leftie, said in one of his honest moments that the open borders is a "Koch brothers proposal".
        alisonatwork 4y ago
        From my perspective any self-proclaimed leftist who is against freedom of movement is essentially a crypto-fascist. The working class aren't really taking back the means of the production if that so-called working class is a privileged group drawn along nationalist or racist lines that explicitly exclude the workers of the world. The way I see it, freedom of movement is pretty much the most fundamental freedom that exists in organic beings. We eat, we grow, we migrate. All the other freedoms are built on that one. If people aren't free to change their living conditions by moving somewhere that provides better opportunities, then they're not really free at all.
  - SequoiaHope 4y ago
    What you say is correct, but I am reminded of something David Harvey says: “wealth redistribution is the lowest form of socialism.” If you have true community ownership of the means of production, then people gain wealth by working for cooperatives, not by state guaranteed benefits. In such a system I would think there is more flexibility in how benefits are distributed.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > The freedom isn't even universally supported on the left Freedom of movement is tied to left internationalism, but radical (i.e., all-at-once/revolutionary) internationalism is not as strong as it once was, and even people that see freedom of movement as a long-term goal often see unrestricted freedom of movement as having unacceptable costs between states that aren't both much further along than any actually are as having practical problems.
  - lambdasquirrel 4y ago
    Not sure why this is being downvoted. > The freedom isn't even universally supported on the left In the U.S., the left broadly supports immigration as well as freedom of movement. But if you take a peep at European politics, and even parts of the left in Canada, you might find that support for immigration and freedom-of-movement really is more complicated. It's one of those weird usages of terminology that the left in the U.S. is described as "liberal." In Europe and Canada, liberal means center-right. But at least in this case, calling the American left liberal is appropriate.
  - jupp0r 4y ago
    Having been born in East Germany I can assure you that the "Left" is not a proponent of free movement and that they will gladly attempt to shoot you for trying to escape from socialist paradise. Calling US Democrats "socialist" for wanting things like universal free health care makes me cringe in light of that.
    - chihuahua 4y ago
      You are 100% correct of course. Political discussions in the U.S. using the word "socialism" are basically meaningless, because people use that word to mean several completely different things: 1. Socialism as practiced in eastern Europe during the Cold War - basically the state is a prison, no one is allowed to leave, people who attempt to leave are shot and left to die, everyone is under surveillance, and dissent is punished very harshly. These governments were proud to call themselves socialist. In East Germany, they referred to themselves as "Socialism as it exists in reality" ("real existierender Sozialimus.") These are not governments that someone is now choosing to call socialist to give socialism a bad name. 2. Socialism as practiced in Europe these days, with a focus on Scandinavia. Somewhat higher taxes, reasonable universal health care, generally people are not left to starve in the street. I'm not sure if it makes sense to call this "socialism." I guess it's social-something. 3. Socialism as a scarecrow in American politics: Anything I don't like is Socialism. Any policy where the government provides benefits is Socialism. Any healthcare system where illness doesn't lead to bankruptcy is Socialism. As a result, people talk past each other, and discussions tend to become nonsensical. Anyone who wants to have an informed opinion on socialism should just take a look at what happened in East Germany and the rest of eastern Europe from 1945-1990.
      - triceratops 4y ago
        What they have in Scandinavia is called "social democracy".[1] It's not socialism. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
      - SequoiaHope 4y ago
        There is another kind of socialism discussed in the USA today. That’s a type of socialism not driven by government but instead direct ownership of the means of production by workers. Basically your economy is a bunch of cooperatives instead of a bunch of firms with a bunch of workers and a small number of owners. The former leads to an economy where everyone is part of the ownership class, eliminating the sharp divide in our current society between owners and workers. It is also a free market system that does not require government intervention to function. This is truer to the writings of Karl Marx than the various 20th century socialisms, as Marx did not generally advocate for a state of affairs where the state owns the means of production. See for example Richard Wolff for a modern day economist who has been advocating for this type of socialism for a long time. Though you will find a historical through line of advocates going back to the 19th century. Notably there is a growing body of socialists who see the folly and horror of state-run socialisms who have gone back to the original theories and renewed their interest in direct control of collectively owned firms instead of state control.
  - makeitdouble 4y ago
    Countries with freedom of movement still have limits on how many people can stay. Those are more organic than dumb border controls though: it comes down to wether you can find a job and a pay a place to stay, and those aren’t infinite. That’s where coming in to become homeless won’t be allowed , same way housing laws will forbid staying in places that are not adequate for residency (rooms with no windows, packing 12 people in one bedroom etc.). Same for minimum wages and taxation stopping a run to the bottom if too many people come in with no value to add to the economy. Basically you’re free to come and go, but will need to find a spot you fit in if you intend to stay.
  - nerdbert 4y ago
    And yet almost all of the most prosperous democratic socialist countries have signed on to allow free movement of people from many of the poorer parts of Europe.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- FpUser 4y ago
  Yes this is very regressive change. I remember times when I could drive into US and back with just regular driver license. I see a zero reason other than turning people into a cattle for sacrificing freedom of movement.
- 015UUZn8aEvW 4y ago
  The increasing legal constraints offset the declining technological constraints. Given modern communications and transportation technology, open borders would have very different practical effects today than a century or two ago. The number of people who would come in would be hugely greater than in the past.
  - TaylorAlexander 4y ago
    Cool. Let’s welcome them and also stop bombing their countries with our militaries and restricting their ability to clone our working technology and maybe they’ll stop trying to leave their homes. EDIT: Point being that open borders has the benefit of forcing us to face the ways in which we are harming other places. The fact that currently many people would leave their homes to come here is a feature not a bug. We’re trying to abuse the rest of the world for our benefit and that makes other people unhappy. We should stop.
    - 015UUZn8aEvW 4y ago
      No, they'll still want to come here en masse even if we don't do those things to them.
    - ralph84 4y ago
      The US mostly abandoned its involvement in Central America and all it did was provide an opening for drug cartels to take over, which has led to a huge influx of migrants. Sorry but your theory just isn't supported by the facts in evidence.
ralph84 4y ago
Looking at Google Maps it appears several other buildings in the area also straddle the border. The reporter mentioned an insurance dispute in passing, but it would be interesting to have more details on how it all works from a legal perspective. Presumably they get two different property tax bills. Are two different building codes enforced depending on which part of the building you're in?
- red_phone 4y ago
  I’d imagine many of the same considerations come into play when a structure straddles a state line in the US. I wonder how that’s handled?
  - klipt 4y ago
    International borders are much more complicated. For example a Canadian citizen couldn't work on the US side without a visa and vice versa.
    - midoridensha 4y ago
      What if their house straddles the border, and they work from home? Are they not allowed to have their computer in one side of the house? Who monitors this?
      - klipt 4y ago
        Technically they would probably have to be dual citizens, or a citizen of one country and permanent resident of the other, to not break laws. And then they'd have to file taxes in both countries. No idea if it's enforced, but if it were, it would probably be such a pain that people would just stop buying/building houses that straddle the border. Why complicate things unnecessarily with a house split between two countries when you can just buy a house that is (like most houses) entirely in one country?
        pc86 4y ago
nier 4y ago
From the linked article: «The line of tape on the floor was added to mark the exact border line after a fire decades ago set off a fight between insurance companies over who had to pay for damages, the tour guide explained.»
kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
I like this log used to protect the border: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.0108844,-73.3349375,3a,75y,141.83h,87.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMi5iVJQ7oSml3k4q0xE7dA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@45.0108844,-73.3349375,3a,75y,1...
- goodcanadian 4y ago
  While the border looks extremely porous, the reality is that it is heavily monitored. You will be met by the police or border patrol if you cross in the wrong place or even if you simply loiter near the border. EDIT: In response to the skepticism, here is a source: https://www.buzzfeed.com/ishmaeldaro/us-canada-border-photos https://www.buzzfeed.com/ishmaeldaro/us-canada-border-photos This Photographer Spent Three Years Documenting The Canada-U.S. Border Along the way, Rutkauskas found that the "longest undefended border in the world" is a lot more heavily policed than its reputation suggests.
  - Scoundreller 4y ago
    I wouldn’t say “will”, but yeah, there is a risk.
  - blamazon 4y ago
    I've spent time in a few of these wacky rural Canadian border places and for the places I went to, it didn't seem that likely one'd be caught in many spots, it's just the consequences if one does are potentially quite severe, and there's a pretty good degree of self policing of the honor system as word gets around a small town real fast. (Unless enough people wish to keep certain crossings secret... interesting idea.) Although a somewhat common story I've heard is youths goofing around on ATVs or snowmobiles being intercepted and let off with a strict warning. Perhaps somewhat mythologically passed down generation to generation.
    - sacnoradhq 4y ago
      Sounds about right. The CA-US border is extremely long and sparsely populated in most areas. Reckless snowmobile use is a common thing in the northern lower 50. The worst is drunk snowmobilers going 90 mph.
no_wizard 4y ago
one piece that is omitted from this is how the border is enforced. From the looks of it, unless you’re looking at becoming employed here they don’t really check your citizenship. That’s a win in my book. Reminds me that when I was a kid you could travel to / from Canada without a passport (only nation with that privilege if I recall correctly) and now you can’t. I recall no real good reasoning for it other than the DOH wanted to close the loop hole, without any real evidence it was a cause of issues
- morelisp 4y ago
  Not only Canada; also Bermuda and fewer restrictions for Mexico. All gone now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Travel_Initiative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Travel_Init...
  - mynameisvlad 4y ago
    The page you linked mentions several non-passport alternatives. Yes, the requirements are stricter in that you have to prove citizenship in some way but there are multiple ways to do that which are WHTI-compliant.
    - morelisp 4y ago
      You mean all the things just as hard to get as a passport, some invented specifically to be used for this new program? Sure, I guess you could get one of those instead. But there's no reason to get one of them rather than a passport except as a fig leaf for people to say a passport "isn't mandatory". Or, and bear with me for a second, we could have kept freedoms we had on September 10th, 2001.
      - mynameisvlad 4y ago
        It’s far easier to get an EDL than to get a passport, what are you talking about? We never had Schengen. Almost every other country has similar entry requirements, why should the US and Canada be any different? They’re not in a far-reaching political alliance, there’s no incentive to have open borders or provide exceptions to rules. 9/11 changed things. It’s absurd to expect things to always be the same and just because it was open before doesn’t mean that was ever intended or expected to be permanent.
gaudat 4y ago
According to their web site, you can visit the place without a US visitor visa from the Canada side. As the only entrance to the library is in the US, all non-American visitors passing through US territory to enter the library must understand that their movements will be monitored by the US Border Patrol and the RCMP. Passports and visas are not necessary to enter the Haskell Free Library & Opera House. However, please be aware that both the US Border Patrol and the RCMP have the right to ask to see personal identification and detain anyone who is not of legal status. We do encourage you to bring your papers with you, just in case. Also see Canusa Avenue just a km/mile or two to the west. Just as the name described the Canada-US border runs through the middle of the road.
- avidphantasm 4y ago
  I have done this. It feels slightly naughty.
  - buggythebug 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - wds 4y ago
      well i have a DOZEN dozen times! what value to the discussion does one-upping bring here?
- Gunnerhead 4y ago
  I’m Canadian and I’ve been stopped by the RCMP while visiting. It was right on the border as I was about to enter the USA so I can enter the library. I only had my driver’s license and one of the RCMP officers went to background check me on his computer while his partner held a conversation with me and their American border agent counterpart. It was pretty intimidating but they finally let me go on my way into the library without further issue.
nine_k 4y ago
(An obligatory joke about Haskell letting you transcend various boundaries of what's considered possible.)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- cbsmith 4y ago
  I was going to mention something about changes of State in purely functional languages...
iamtedd 4y ago
Tom Scott has previously made a video on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EocJm3Dry4E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EocJm3Dry4E
fwilliams 4y ago
It’s crazy seeing this on the front page of HN! I grew up in Stanstead. I have fond memories of story time as a child in the library, borrowing movies and comic books, and playing age of empires 2 with my best friend on the two shared computers in the front room. There’s also a street in the town (aptly named Canusa st.) which is half in the US and half in Canada. Interestingly, the houses on one side have flags reminding you where you are, while there are no flags on the other. Figuring out which side is left as an exersize to the reader ;)
- dtgriscom 4y ago
  Is it that the US residents are chauvinistic, or that the Canadians are embarrassed?
  - TravHatesMe 4y ago
    A little bit of both.
  - joshlemer 4y ago
    Also people identify less with Canadian iconography in Quebec.
    - cobb 4y ago
      What’s the most Canadian-flag-waving part of the country (if any)?
      - joshlemer 4y ago
        I would say likely Ontario, and specifically the Ottawa capital region. Though, since the Convoy, waving a Canadian Flag has taken on a Conservative/right wing/populist connotation that I think is still around today, so it may be shifting in the direction of Alberta and Saskatchewan.
  - andyferris 4y ago
    Lol. (Also note that in Quebec provence flying a Canadian flag can be a bit of a political statement… it seemed easier to me to be carefully neutral on such things).
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Lindalee51 4y ago
[dead]
Lindalee51 4y ago
[dead]

125 points by greggarious 4y ago

It's interesting to see the efforts to lock down our once permeable borders succeeding in recent decades. It seems that for much of our history we had no issue with free passage across, but we have in my lifetime used the politics of fear to militarize our borders. Obviously some will disagree but this seems to me a regressive change.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
klyrs 4y ago
Freedom of movement is tenuous, and one of the greater paradoxes of the modern "libertarian" movement. The freedom isn't even universally supported on the left -- democratic socialist countries rely on high taxes and low economic inequality to maintain their systems, which, the reasoning goes, is unsustainable in the face of an unrestricted influx of economic refugees.
- serial_dev 4y ago
  > The freedom isn't even universally supported on the left It could be argued from a "leftist" position (whatever that means nowadays) that: it's mostly working class people that need to compete with immigrants. If the immigrants are undocumented or very poor, they are more likely to tolerate lower wages and unsafe working conditions, meaning that I (if I was a working class American) would have less negotiating power when it comes to my wages and work conditions, as there are plenty of people who would be happy to replace me. Also, working class people are more likely to meet with the immigrants that are engaged in illegal activities, whereas if you are middle-upper class or rich, you'll meet the educated, immigrants that maybe help your business growing or at the very least help you keep your household running. I'm just trying to show a different "leftist" take, I don't really have a strong opinion on this issue as I believe there are good people on both sides and figuring out the best approach is basically impossible.
  - rascul 4y ago
    > It could be argued from a "leftist" position (whatever that means nowadays) that: it's mostly working class people that need to compete with immigrants. If the immigrants are undocumented or very poor, they are more likely to tolerate lower wages and unsafe working conditions, meaning that I (if I was a working class American) would have less negotiating power when it comes to my wages and work conditions, as there are plenty of people who would be happy to replace me. That sounds very similar to the "they're stealing our jobs" argument I hear sometimes from people on the right.
    - adalacelove 4y ago
      And on a lot of countries the right has gained support within the working class
    - serial_dev 4y ago
      It might feel like a cosmetic nitpicking, but if I say they are "stealing our jobs", I'm blaming and vilifying the immigrants without wanting to understand their reasons for coming here and the unfortunate situation they are in. On the other hand, my ability to negotiate with the powerful owner class is strongly reduced if there are people that are willing to be exploited or simply don't have another choice due to their immigration status and poverty. It could be argued that more people coming in results in bad working conditions for both the immigrants and the working class, whereas the rich can take advantage of the situation and amass a fortune on the misfortune of the poor (both native and alien). Bernie Sanders, once a prominent leftie, said in one of his honest moments that the open borders is a "Koch brothers proposal".
      - alisonatwork 4y ago
        From my perspective any self-proclaimed leftist who is against freedom of movement is essentially a crypto-fascist. The working class aren't really taking back the means of the production if that so-called working class is a privileged group drawn along nationalist or racist lines that explicitly exclude the workers of the world. The way I see it, freedom of movement is pretty much the most fundamental freedom that exists in organic beings. We eat, we grow, we migrate. All the other freedoms are built on that one. If people aren't free to change their living conditions by moving somewhere that provides better opportunities, then they're not really free at all.
- SequoiaHope 4y ago
  What you say is correct, but I am reminded of something David Harvey says: “wealth redistribution is the lowest form of socialism.” If you have true community ownership of the means of production, then people gain wealth by working for cooperatives, not by state guaranteed benefits. In such a system I would think there is more flexibility in how benefits are distributed.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > The freedom isn't even universally supported on the left Freedom of movement is tied to left internationalism, but radical (i.e., all-at-once/revolutionary) internationalism is not as strong as it once was, and even people that see freedom of movement as a long-term goal often see unrestricted freedom of movement as having unacceptable costs between states that aren't both much further along than any actually are as having practical problems.
- lambdasquirrel 4y ago
  Not sure why this is being downvoted. > The freedom isn't even universally supported on the left In the U.S., the left broadly supports immigration as well as freedom of movement. But if you take a peep at European politics, and even parts of the left in Canada, you might find that support for immigration and freedom-of-movement really is more complicated. It's one of those weird usages of terminology that the left in the U.S. is described as "liberal." In Europe and Canada, liberal means center-right. But at least in this case, calling the American left liberal is appropriate.
- jupp0r 4y ago
  Having been born in East Germany I can assure you that the "Left" is not a proponent of free movement and that they will gladly attempt to shoot you for trying to escape from socialist paradise. Calling US Democrats "socialist" for wanting things like universal free health care makes me cringe in light of that.
  - chihuahua 4y ago
    You are 100% correct of course. Political discussions in the U.S. using the word "socialism" are basically meaningless, because people use that word to mean several completely different things: 1. Socialism as practiced in eastern Europe during the Cold War - basically the state is a prison, no one is allowed to leave, people who attempt to leave are shot and left to die, everyone is under surveillance, and dissent is punished very harshly. These governments were proud to call themselves socialist. In East Germany, they referred to themselves as "Socialism as it exists in reality" ("real existierender Sozialimus.") These are not governments that someone is now choosing to call socialist to give socialism a bad name. 2. Socialism as practiced in Europe these days, with a focus on Scandinavia. Somewhat higher taxes, reasonable universal health care, generally people are not left to starve in the street. I'm not sure if it makes sense to call this "socialism." I guess it's social-something. 3. Socialism as a scarecrow in American politics: Anything I don't like is Socialism. Any policy where the government provides benefits is Socialism. Any healthcare system where illness doesn't lead to bankruptcy is Socialism. As a result, people talk past each other, and discussions tend to become nonsensical. Anyone who wants to have an informed opinion on socialism should just take a look at what happened in East Germany and the rest of eastern Europe from 1945-1990.
    - triceratops 4y ago
      What they have in Scandinavia is called "social democracy".[1] It's not socialism. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
    - SequoiaHope 4y ago
      There is another kind of socialism discussed in the USA today. That’s a type of socialism not driven by government but instead direct ownership of the means of production by workers. Basically your economy is a bunch of cooperatives instead of a bunch of firms with a bunch of workers and a small number of owners. The former leads to an economy where everyone is part of the ownership class, eliminating the sharp divide in our current society between owners and workers. It is also a free market system that does not require government intervention to function. This is truer to the writings of Karl Marx than the various 20th century socialisms, as Marx did not generally advocate for a state of affairs where the state owns the means of production. See for example Richard Wolff for a modern day economist who has been advocating for this type of socialism for a long time. Though you will find a historical through line of advocates going back to the 19th century. Notably there is a growing body of socialists who see the folly and horror of state-run socialisms who have gone back to the original theories and renewed their interest in direct control of collectively owned firms instead of state control.
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  Countries with freedom of movement still have limits on how many people can stay. Those are more organic than dumb border controls though: it comes down to wether you can find a job and a pay a place to stay, and those aren’t infinite. That’s where coming in to become homeless won’t be allowed , same way housing laws will forbid staying in places that are not adequate for residency (rooms with no windows, packing 12 people in one bedroom etc.). Same for minimum wages and taxation stopping a run to the bottom if too many people come in with no value to add to the economy. Basically you’re free to come and go, but will need to find a spot you fit in if you intend to stay.
- nerdbert 4y ago
  And yet almost all of the most prosperous democratic socialist countries have signed on to allow free movement of people from many of the poorer parts of Europe.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
FpUser 4y ago
Yes this is very regressive change. I remember times when I could drive into US and back with just regular driver license. I see a zero reason other than turning people into a cattle for sacrificing freedom of movement.
015UUZn8aEvW 4y ago
The increasing legal constraints offset the declining technological constraints. Given modern communications and transportation technology, open borders would have very different practical effects today than a century or two ago. The number of people who would come in would be hugely greater than in the past.
- TaylorAlexander 4y ago
  Cool. Let’s welcome them and also stop bombing their countries with our militaries and restricting their ability to clone our working technology and maybe they’ll stop trying to leave their homes. EDIT: Point being that open borders has the benefit of forcing us to face the ways in which we are harming other places. The fact that currently many people would leave their homes to come here is a feature not a bug. We’re trying to abuse the rest of the world for our benefit and that makes other people unhappy. We should stop.
  - 015UUZn8aEvW 4y ago
    No, they'll still want to come here en masse even if we don't do those things to them.
  - ralph84 4y ago
    The US mostly abandoned its involvement in Central America and all it did was provide an opening for drug cartels to take over, which has led to a huge influx of migrants. Sorry but your theory just isn't supported by the facts in evidence.

ralph84 4y ago

Looking at Google Maps it appears several other buildings in the area also straddle the border. The reporter mentioned an insurance dispute in passing, but it would be interesting to have more details on how it all works from a legal perspective. Presumably they get two different property tax bills. Are two different building codes enforced depending on which part of the building you're in?

red_phone 4y ago
I’d imagine many of the same considerations come into play when a structure straddles a state line in the US. I wonder how that’s handled?
- klipt 4y ago
  International borders are much more complicated. For example a Canadian citizen couldn't work on the US side without a visa and vice versa.
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    What if their house straddles the border, and they work from home? Are they not allowed to have their computer in one side of the house? Who monitors this?
    - klipt 4y ago
      Technically they would probably have to be dual citizens, or a citizen of one country and permanent resident of the other, to not break laws. And then they'd have to file taxes in both countries. No idea if it's enforced, but if it were, it would probably be such a pain that people would just stop buying/building houses that straddle the border. Why complicate things unnecessarily with a house split between two countries when you can just buy a house that is (like most houses) entirely in one country?
      - pc86 4y ago

nier 4y ago

From the linked article: «The line of tape on the floor was added to mark the exact border line after a fire decades ago set off a fight between insurance companies over who had to pay for damages, the tour guide explained.»

kevin_thibedeau 4y ago

I like this log used to protect the border: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.0108844,-73.3349375,3a,75y,141.83h,87.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMi5iVJQ7oSml3k4q0xE7dA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@45.0108844,-73.3349375,3a,75y,1...

goodcanadian 4y ago
While the border looks extremely porous, the reality is that it is heavily monitored. You will be met by the police or border patrol if you cross in the wrong place or even if you simply loiter near the border. EDIT: In response to the skepticism, here is a source: https://www.buzzfeed.com/ishmaeldaro/us-canada-border-photos https://www.buzzfeed.com/ishmaeldaro/us-canada-border-photos This Photographer Spent Three Years Documenting The Canada-U.S. Border Along the way, Rutkauskas found that the "longest undefended border in the world" is a lot more heavily policed than its reputation suggests.
- Scoundreller 4y ago
  I wouldn’t say “will”, but yeah, there is a risk.
- blamazon 4y ago
  I've spent time in a few of these wacky rural Canadian border places and for the places I went to, it didn't seem that likely one'd be caught in many spots, it's just the consequences if one does are potentially quite severe, and there's a pretty good degree of self policing of the honor system as word gets around a small town real fast. (Unless enough people wish to keep certain crossings secret... interesting idea.) Although a somewhat common story I've heard is youths goofing around on ATVs or snowmobiles being intercepted and let off with a strict warning. Perhaps somewhat mythologically passed down generation to generation.
  - sacnoradhq 4y ago
    Sounds about right. The CA-US border is extremely long and sparsely populated in most areas. Reckless snowmobile use is a common thing in the northern lower 50. The worst is drunk snowmobilers going 90 mph.

no_wizard 4y ago

one piece that is omitted from this is how the border is enforced. From the looks of it, unless you’re looking at becoming employed here they don’t really check your citizenship. That’s a win in my book. Reminds me that when I was a kid you could travel to / from Canada without a passport (only nation with that privilege if I recall correctly) and now you can’t. I recall no real good reasoning for it other than the DOH wanted to close the loop hole, without any real evidence it was a cause of issues

morelisp 4y ago
Not only Canada; also Bermuda and fewer restrictions for Mexico. All gone now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Travel_Initiative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Travel_Init...
- mynameisvlad 4y ago
  The page you linked mentions several non-passport alternatives. Yes, the requirements are stricter in that you have to prove citizenship in some way but there are multiple ways to do that which are WHTI-compliant.
  - morelisp 4y ago
    You mean all the things just as hard to get as a passport, some invented specifically to be used for this new program? Sure, I guess you could get one of those instead. But there's no reason to get one of them rather than a passport except as a fig leaf for people to say a passport "isn't mandatory". Or, and bear with me for a second, we could have kept freedoms we had on September 10th, 2001.
    - mynameisvlad 4y ago
      It’s far easier to get an EDL than to get a passport, what are you talking about? We never had Schengen. Almost every other country has similar entry requirements, why should the US and Canada be any different? They’re not in a far-reaching political alliance, there’s no incentive to have open borders or provide exceptions to rules. 9/11 changed things. It’s absurd to expect things to always be the same and just because it was open before doesn’t mean that was ever intended or expected to be permanent.

gaudat 4y ago

According to their web site, you can visit the place without a US visitor visa from the Canada side. As the only entrance to the library is in the US, all non-American visitors passing through US territory to enter the library must understand that their movements will be monitored by the US Border Patrol and the RCMP. Passports and visas are not necessary to enter the Haskell Free Library & Opera House. However, please be aware that both the US Border Patrol and the RCMP have the right to ask to see personal identification and detain anyone who is not of legal status. We do encourage you to bring your papers with you, just in case. Also see Canusa Avenue just a km/mile or two to the west. Just as the name described the Canada-US border runs through the middle of the road.

avidphantasm 4y ago
I have done this. It feels slightly naughty.
- buggythebug 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - wds 4y ago
    well i have a DOZEN dozen times! what value to the discussion does one-upping bring here?
Gunnerhead 4y ago
I’m Canadian and I’ve been stopped by the RCMP while visiting. It was right on the border as I was about to enter the USA so I can enter the library. I only had my driver’s license and one of the RCMP officers went to background check me on his computer while his partner held a conversation with me and their American border agent counterpart. It was pretty intimidating but they finally let me go on my way into the library without further issue.

nine_k 4y ago

(An obligatory joke about Haskell letting you transcend various boundaries of what's considered possible.)

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
cbsmith 4y ago
I was going to mention something about changes of State in purely functional languages...

iamtedd 4y ago

Tom Scott has previously made a video on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EocJm3Dry4E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EocJm3Dry4E

fwilliams 4y ago

It’s crazy seeing this on the front page of HN! I grew up in Stanstead. I have fond memories of story time as a child in the library, borrowing movies and comic books, and playing age of empires 2 with my best friend on the two shared computers in the front room. There’s also a street in the town (aptly named Canusa st.) which is half in the US and half in Canada. Interestingly, the houses on one side have flags reminding you where you are, while there are no flags on the other. Figuring out which side is left as an exersize to the reader ;)

dtgriscom 4y ago
Is it that the US residents are chauvinistic, or that the Canadians are embarrassed?
- TravHatesMe 4y ago
  A little bit of both.
- joshlemer 4y ago
  Also people identify less with Canadian iconography in Quebec.
  - cobb 4y ago
    What’s the most Canadian-flag-waving part of the country (if any)?
    - joshlemer 4y ago
      I would say likely Ontario, and specifically the Ottawa capital region. Though, since the Convoy, waving a Canadian Flag has taken on a Conservative/right wing/populist connotation that I think is still around today, so it may be shifting in the direction of Alberta and Saskatchewan.
- andyferris 4y ago
  Lol. (Also note that in Quebec provence flying a Canadian flag can be a bit of a political statement… it seemed easier to me to be carefully neutral on such things).

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Lindalee51 4y ago

[dead]

Lindalee51 4y ago

[dead]