Canada-United States Border and Relations

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

The border US security structure since 9/11
Provisions of the US-Canada free trade agreement and NAFTA
The Canada-United States Friendly Relations
Bibliography
Footnotes

The border US security structure since 9/11

Securing the United States’ borders, including land, air, and sea from illegal entry by immigrants, and contraband such as weapons and drugs has been the face of America’s security structure from before the lapse of the 9/11 attack.¹

However, after the 9/11 attack, the security structure took a new twist and continued to shape to meet the challenges of new threats. America believes in strengthening its homeland security to achieve economic prosperity. While the US shares a common border with Canada to the North and Mexico to the south, the security department is the vigil of the fact that these borders could be porous to bring about a serious security breach. After the 9/11 attack, homeland security has been committing to great levels of border security check, including personnel, intelligence, and technology, to its border with Canada and Mexico with increased maritime and air surveillance. While the terror threats persist, the American security structure continues to grow stronger than it was before the Al-Qaeda hit.²

Today, America is more prepared to detect, thwart, and defeat terrorism with greater resilience to keep its diplomatic ties with both Canada and Mexico. Together, the American Security Council’s effort to safeguard its borders continues to lay a strong foundation to protect its citizens from terrorism and other contrabands while safeguarding its international relations with both Canada and Mexico.

The American Security Council partners with the Canadian government, especially in the wake of the 9/11 attack, to strengthen its border surveillance, and together two nations have come up with a robust security enterprise to optimally mitigate and safeguard its borders against the dynamics of terrorism.³

There has been the increased need to minimize risks that emanate from porous border points to maximize the ability to detect, confront, and mitigate threats and attacks from terror groups. In the wake of 9/11, the United States promulgated the Patriot Act to help its government in securing its borders. The US Patriot Act was officially instituted in 2001 as the most sweeping enactment following the 9/11 attack. As an effective homeland security commitment to ensure the safety of the American people, the Patriot Act aimed to restore order through surveillance and rapid tracking response, including seizures and detention of suspected terrorists and their agents. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attack, President Bush, together with the Attorney General John Ashcroft, effectively rallied Congress to increase the federal powers of search, seizures, surveillance, as well as the detention of suspects. In the meantime, the concerns of domestic liberties were put away deliberately as the Act unanimously got support from both the Democratic and Republican divide.⁴

The key features of the Patriot Act included the Roving Wiretaps that allowed the federal agency to wiretap any telephone conversations that terror suspects and agents might use to penetrate the security systems. In the course of all these developments, the federal agency became more consistent in the use of internet tracking as a means of fast-tracking internet communication. The law enforcement authorities, therefore, had the capacity to interfere directly in the personal accounts of individuals using the internet without necessarily having to obtain warrants for such impersonations. The Patriot Act also guaranteed the federal authorities the right to order for business records for private and public companies for litigation scrutiny and auditing by the federal authorities.⁵

In so doing, federal investigators have been able to access information and communications from consumer purchases, bank records, credit cards, libraries as well as schools, and colleges. Moreover, the Act instituted a special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court with the capacity to issue search certifications at the request of an investigator to launch a terrorist investigation on foreign visitation to America. In addition, the Aliens Reporting and Detention Act authorize the Federal authorities to require reportage by foreign persons visiting America, and those found to be in America illegally risked arrest and detention without plea or warrant.

Within the tenets of keeping with the traditions of the Patriotic Act, the US Customs and Border Protection empowered the federal authorities to seize the property or obstruct such logistics of suspected terrorists. Individuals whose property fall victim to the rule bear a duty of proof that the property in question was not for the purpose of terrorism and the provision also guaranteed no claim. The detention laws allowed the federal authorities to detain suspected terrorists and agents for lengthy periods during which interrogation and effective investigation for such persons will take place within America and their home countries. The federal authorities also became effective in fast-tracking the indigenous American citizens from terrorist connections. Patriot Act instituted prohibition against harboring terrorists as a duty to thwart the emergent terrorist networks in America, Canada, and from other parts of the world. Harboring individuals who have committed a felony amounting to terror, therefore, became highly constrained by the federal authorities.⁶

In retrospect, the Patriot Act unleashed a tall order for the various institutions charged with the security of the American populations. In achieving the objectives of the Patriot Act, the American citizens became more involved in ensuring the smooth passage of the Act by showing a commitment to thwart terrorism. Terror suspects and agents, by contrast, carry the greatest responsibility for their crimes as provided for by the Patriot Act.

What could be done to make the border work better in Canada

America and Canada have deeply rooted historical ties strengthened by shared geography and at times – culture and socio-economic heritage. The two nations exist in mutuality and have the largest bilateral trade partnerships rated at over $700 billion annually, including across border jobs that the two nations share.⁷

As such, the United States- Canada’s common border is more than a geographical boundary presented on a map – the two nations drive livelihood from one another in many ways. With its enormous stretch, the US-Canada border holds countless ports that are an aperture to goods and people from both countries. The US-Canada borderline is, thus, a lifeline to the numerous lives of the citizens of both countries and, for that matter, the pivot for US-Canada economic competitiveness. America and Canada have a long-standing tradition of international relations to promote security, to facilitate movement across the borders to boost trade and develop their economies.⁸

Despite the increased threat of terrorism and contraband in recent years, the two nations have continued to build stronger ties to promote legitimate trade and across border travels for ease of access to commodities and infrastructure. The Beyond Border Declaration signed in 2011 between the US’s President, and Canadian Prime Minister is a strategy that seeks to provide joint security at their borders as well as mutual economic competitiveness for the two countries. The Beyond the Border initiative intends to expand and institutionalize the international relations between the two nations not only at the common border points but also in the heartlands.

Such initiatives as Beyond, the Border Declaration, should provide opportunities to Canadian residents, itinerants, and local industries to trade well with their American contemporaries and beyond. Moreover, the security authorities of both nations might use this opportunity to address key security issues through protocol facilitation and assimilation, as well as through logistics and emergency management. As the implementation of this initiative continues to grow, the Canadian government should strategically direct more energy in leaning from the pilot programs intended to enhance innovative approaches, forwarding and clearance, and foreign corporations for long-term relationships.⁹

Canada and America might push for greater joint intelligence assessments to strengthen the dualistic methodical collaboration to thwart the security and economic threats posed by terrorists and a tremendous pool of contraband that the two nations face currently. America and Canada recognize that the need to identify the central awareness to build capacity and develop a platform for bilateral planning to reduce the gap discrepancy between the two nations and establish priorities in securing the shared borderline. Moreover, the two nations need to advance joint efforts capable of countering aggression from across the border, Canada particularly might use this opportunity to advance its research aptitude to inure best practices from the US’s success, and secure tools to monitor terrorists and to detect, and deter their activities. In addition, these two nations further need to engage in numerous multilateral forums to increase terrorism awareness, advance disaster preparedness to progress trade, and develop their economies in stature. Finally, Canada might take this opportunity to bolster its security system by implementation initiatives such as Entry/Exit immigration information versioning to track down on terrorists and their agents to secure a viable environment its economic growth.¹⁰

Provisions of the US-Canada free trade agreement and NAFTA

The provision of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between Canada and America was reached upon by negotiations between the two nations in 1987.¹¹ FTA aimed to phase out the prevailing wide-ranging trade tariffs that hindered economic growth between the two nations. In the 1990s, Mexico joined its regional neighbors in fronting a formidable economic block. In 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was born, thus comprising of United States, Canada, and Mexico as the key players in the region’s common market. As provided for in its stipulations, NAFTA sought to remove obstacles to trade for goods and services and to increase the free movement of persons between Canada and the US. The provisions under this agreement also enshrined conditions for fair competition within the economic trade area while establishing liberalized conditions for inverter interests within these two trading blocs. NAFTA also sought to establish robust frameworks for joint security administration along the borderline to enhance regional agreement and to facilitate dispute mechanisms for resolutions of border conflicts.¹²

Within NAFTA, both Canada and the United States find common ground to reach a compromise on furthering bilateral and multifaceted confederation to facilitate and realize the ideals and the benefits for which NAFTA was formed. America and Canada realize that they can perfect their unilateral capacities by joining hands to work together to facilitate services for their people under these trade agreements. Furthermore, these trade agreements have been instrumental in securing opportunities for both countries in terms of trade, border security, and economic competitiveness. The joint economic block between Canada and America forms a common market where both countries invest their primary goods and services with limited restrictions.¹³

These trade agreements have further increased the adoption of micro human yield with financial viability that has seen the region grow in stature. The growth factors within these agreements have always been in the form of direct sales of the products and services. In the end, the cash price between the two trading blocs has been tremendously profitable. In the resulting stable common market, there has been increased investor confidence and enhanced foreign exchange in the region. These trade agreements alone are responsible for the beefed-up border security surveillance that the region enjoys currently.

Debate and implementation

The debate that culminated in the NAFTA pact was very contentious in Canada, with the main opposition Liberal Party threatening to tear it apart if they assume power. Other opposition parties were also opposed to the idea of NAFTA, and the New Democratic Party strongly objected to the agreement. The Canadian opposition vehemently opposed these agreements in unity, arguing that NAFTA particularly would erode the sovereignty of Canada and sell its birthright to the United States of America.¹⁴

Moreover, the opposition in Canada was greatly concerned with Canadian social activities, bilateral trade, and security pacts such as Auto Pact as bearing a bleak future for the nation. The contentious partisan debate eventually sparked off strong public debate as the Canadian society became polarized along with partisan positions. While the proponents of the government of Canada thought it was wise to enter into a bilateral pact with the United States, opposition supporters thought otherwise. With the increased mixture of public interest and conflict, there was a delay in the implementation of these agreements as the Liberal Party sought to subdue the government ruling due to its majority in the senate.

In the subsequent election, these trade agreements became the focus of the campaign with the proponents of the Trade Agreements fronting their ideals to the electorate while the opponents of these agreements sought otherwise under the banner of “Free Trade Election.” The trade agreements played a pivotal role in shaping the destiny of Canada during the campaigns as the society shaped up along ideological blocs with proponents and opponents of the trade agreements using lobbyists in gravitating their ideals and win over the electorate. In the culminating events, political propaganda played out in the debates with negative advertising taking shape to demean the trade agreements.¹⁵

The opponents of the trade agreements embarked on a rigorous anti-free trade politicking that pointed to the encroachment of the US- Canadian border by the American government. The pollsters conducted within the period showed slight discrepancies of those in favor and those who are against the trade agreements, although much of the polls showed the Canadian society mainly behind the Progressive Conservative Party edging towards the agreement. Both NDP and the Liberals divided the anti-free trade vote making the government win over the opposition. With the Trade Agreement confidence bestowed on the government, the government of President Mulroney quickly passed the agreement bringing the pact into force. In the United States, by contrast, the trade agreement received cordial reception with minimal opposition. To begin with, the American public seemed less conscious of the Trade Agreement, and so it never sparked off greater public debate. The Congress received the treaty to modify it, after which President Ronald Reagan ratified it into law after House and Senate passed it in 1988.¹⁶

The nature of free trade in Canada

Many academicians and opinion leaders argue that it could be difficult to measure precisely the ramifications of these trade agreements; however, in both Canada and the United States, the results of these pacts are magnificent. Upon its legislation, trade rapidly evolved between the United States and Canada, leading to a market share never witnessed before between the two economies. Canada’s gross domestic product (GDP) rose by over 25 percent within the first year of the pact as it opened its borders with America in the enhanced free-market economy. Moreover, between 1990 and 1999 exports increased exponentially to about 40 percent of GDP in Canada. Furthermore, in the wake of the new millennium, Canada’s GDP rose overnight to nearly 50 percent.¹⁷

The robust trade agreement between Canada and the United States probably manured the grounds for the region’s economic growth. There has been an increased commitment to trade in export and import products between companies from the two regions. The two nations continue to enhance trade as well as the facilitation of services such as security across the border through their Interpol to beef up border surveillance. With renewed investor confidence, Canada has been able to put its capital in America, and this, in turn, continues to beckon the American investors to tap into the tremendous reservoir of resources.

Generally, Trade Agreements have free trade been good for Canada. On many occasions, researchers and opinion leaders have pointed out that the effects of the Trade Agreements on Canada particularly have been great due to variance in the value of the Canadian dollar against the US dollar. Almost after the ratification of the Trade Agreement, the Canadian dollar rose exponentially against the American dollar. This phenomenon led to an increase in the price of Canadian products, while Canadian society could obtain from America such products at a lower cost. Moreover, the pact made it necessary to lower duties charged on American imports making the Canadian economy blossom in the booming trade with America.

More profoundly, the enactment of cross-border shopping made it easy for the Canadian economy to make good use of the tariff-free products that made it almost free to import from goods from America. However, the trade agreements have also come with an equal amount of disadvantages earlier, not anticipated in the pact. Throughout the economic decline, the Canadian community lost job opportunities, especially in the manufacturing segment, much of which is attributable to the free enterprise economy resulting from the Trade Treaties. As the recession period continued to hit, the Canadian dollar fell miserably against the stable US dollar, making Canada sell its products at a much cheaper cost.¹⁸

Canadian chief exports such as oil and lumber particularly received a big blow in the culminating economic slump down. In America, the declining Canadian dollar made it export mainly its cheap products, making it hard for Canada to cope with the economic meltdown.

Trade Agreements sought to eliminate trade tariffs to mend the market forces between the two nations. The agreements achieved greatly in their capacity to raise currency values, which eventually culminated into greater economic growth between the two nations. While the agreement was a success factor in many areas, it failed to liberalize trade in all sectors of the economy. The Canadian primary producers particularly found it hard to trade with their American counterparts, which increasingly preached the protocols of the agreements by imposing protectionist policies.

The Canada-United States Friendly Relations

Canada and the United States demonstrate one of the world’s unique relationships. Being two independent states that occupy part of North America and working together by sharing the world’s lengthiest undivided boundary, each of them depending on one another for trade, security, and opulence, the two countries have a great cordial relationship. Regardless of fighting and scramble for fame in the previous years, the two countries emerged as if they were one entity in their goal for creating a formidable relationship meant to steer their economic development. Though the United States is more powerful in all aspects of rating, the two countries build a strong power of engagement.

The friendly relationship between Canada and the United States began in 1938 through the onset of war between Japan and the United States in quench to control the territories of the Pacific Ocean. Japan, to one end, maintained that part of the territory belonged to them while Japan also strongly maintained the territory was part of the Japanese land. In an attempt to control the menace, countries such as China, Germany, and Canada came into the verge to help the verge of collision in the expression of interest.

After lengthy discussions involving top government officials from the mentioned parties, no fruits yielded, making the two countries to set mechanisms forcefully to maintain control of the land. In this regard, Canada collaborated with the United States while China and Japan joined the Japanese military, prompting a war in early 1940. However, due to preparations, the war did not commence until late in 1944. This built the first stage of friendship between Canada and the United States of America.¹⁹

In September 1939, the Second World War arose. The United States remained neutral though made two important agreements with the Canadian King that formalized the American support for Canada. In 1940, they established the first commitment referred to as the Ogdensburg Agreement that formed the Permanent Joint Board on Defense, which incorporated both militants from Canada as well as the USA. Later on, in 1941, they formed another agreement, the Hyde Park Agreement, that united the economies of the two countries during wartime. The two agreements later won approval from the United States Congress as well as the Canadian governing body.

The ties and admiration between Canada and the United States intensified as they headed to World War II in the last month of 1941. The determination of many Canadians to become American citizens frightened the King. According to Dyment, a public opinion poll conducted in the same year indicated a greater percentage were willing and ready to leave Canada and join the United States for the sake of their security.²⁰ However, the King maintained a relationship with the US before and even after the war.

The onset of the Cold War in 1958 with the Soviet Union created another binding conviction by most Canadians of the ability of the US to defend the universal value system as well as the security of all individuals in the world. This led to the signing of a joint continental air (NORAD) between Canada and the United States. Later in 1959, the two nations agreed to the Canada-US Defense Production Involvement Initiative. These growing links saw Walter Gordon and Vincent Massey jointly head royal committees on economics programs and cultural values. Markedly, this crucial factor contributed to the American influence in Canada. Even though the 1956 Pipeline Debate and the Suez Crisis Debate revealed fear among politicians over the American control on Canada’s governance systems as well as its plans, Prime Minister John Diefenbaker handed over Canada to NORAD and the defense-involvement scheme.

Consequently, he befriended President Dwight Eisenhower. However, he bewailed the widening gap between Britain and Canada, as well as the alarming adoption of the American culture and other influence. In 1961, however, when John Kennedy became the President of the United States, hatred loomed between the two heads of states leading to rapid differences in policy. The friendly relations broke when Diefenbaker rejected nuclear arms for Canada and subsequently vacillated support J. F. Kennedy on the missile disaster in Cuba in 1962. Kennedy, thereafter, blatantly faulted the Prime Minister for his failure to implement all obligations. The further rift between the two nations occurred when Diefenbaker faulted the Americans of interfering with the Canadian elections resulting in his defeat. The dealings further worsened when Prime Minister Lester Pearson declined to back the United States at the time of war in Vietnam. The Canadians openly disagreed with American influence and foreign policy.²¹

Consequently, the emergence of cultural practices such as nationalist initiatives frightened the King. In addition, the economic upcoming of the National Energy Program became offended the Canadians more. Brian Mulroney’s election in 1984 again rejuvenated appeasement with the United States through the adoption of a Conservative model that destabilized the nationalistic rules and organizations like the Foreign Investment Review Agency (FIRA). Canadian polls of 1985 and 1986 displayed a robust backing for Free Trade and other programs established by Brian Mulroney. This established the first attempt to reunite the two countries; however, in early 1987, the backing waned.

The two countries formed commissions, which acted as a model of solidarity since top government officials from the two countries simultaneously participated in the decision making for the defense forces. Vincent Massey and Walter Gordon jointly chaired the commission with an equal number of members from the two countries. The commissioned aimed at promoting the economic and cultural status of the two countries without compromising their individual rights and freedoms. Regardless of the good relations formed, trouble started looming in the year 1956 when Canadian parliamentarians demonstrated fear over the influence of America on the culture and politics of Canada.

They accused the United States president of financially supporting a certain candidate in his bid to becoming the next Canadian Prime Minister. However, Prime Minister John Diefenbaker did not respond to such accusations but continued in building stronger relationships with the United States. In fact, he committed the Canadians fully to the NORAD and defense-sharing plan. Diefenbaker continued to build stronger relations with America, making close moves with President Dwight Eisenhower, a mutual relationship that Canadian legislatures perceived as a sacrifice of their nation to America. This further led to the weakening of the relationship between the Canadian parliamentarians and the Prime Minister. Upon the declaration and inauguration of John Kennedy as the President of the United States, hatred loomed with the two countries widening their rift. The hatred intensified, breaking all the policies earlier developed. The United States and Canada retained their different entities operating independently.

On the worse, the two countries went to the extent of expressing a cold war with the United States limiting foreign relations and aid to Canada. The widening rift between the two countries saw a reduction in the economic status of Canada with an outbreak of famine that the President did not bother to help. Later in the same year, Prime Minister Diefenbaker, in his attempt to retain his seat as the Canadian Prime Minister, lost to Lester Pearson, who became the prime Minister.

Regardless of a massive win by Lester, Diefenbaker rejected the results blaming John Kennedy for interfering with the elections. Upon the swearing-in of Lester as the Canadian Prime Minister, he first strives to build a cohesive relationship with his parliamentarians, building their integrity on the relationship between Canada and the United States. On the onset of the Vietnam War, the Canadians declined participation, arguing that they are reviewing their relationship with the United States to build formidable and everlasting ties. President John Kennedy, thereafter, retires before the conclusion of setting mechanisms to enable equal considerations of the two countries. The Canadians openly disagreed with American influence and foreign policy. Consequently, the emergence of cultural practices, such as nationalist initiatives, frightened the King. In addition, the economic upcoming of the National Energy Program became offended the Canadians more.

In October 1987, the two governments drafted a trade pact after prolonged consultations. This treaty built the foundation for the reelection of Mulroney Conservatives in 1988, after which the trade agreement fully became operational, vitally changing the Canadian-American economic relations. For instance, the goods from one country to the other could freely move with reduced taxes. Consequently, the hiring of workers to work in the United States as well as in Canada without an extra was possible. The agreement boosted the competitive advantage of the two countries, especially in the auto industry.

Later on, towards the end of 1987, the two countries discussed the issue and agreed to exempt it from their Partnership Act. After concluding on the matter they signed, they retreated through the incorporated another organization in its place, which received full support from the two countries. The trade treaty reached Mexico in 1994, but with a different name – North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA); it is still used today. At the time of NAFTA’s negotiations, a vast number of the US’s export on agricultural products required import licensing to other states within the North American region such as Mexico.

The region trade faced several challenges as some states had several red tapes and other non-tariff barriers that included an official import price, thus the agreement was a blessing to the region. It is worth noting that by the time North America Free Trade Agreement was implemented, the United States and Canada had a cordial relationship that allowed free trade making with lesser tariff barriers. This reflected into one-third of the global output amounting to more or less 1 trillion US Dollars.

However, the trade agreement failed due to the failure of agreements on subsidies to materialize. Moreover, Canada experienced limited scope in decision making in controversial matters concerning the US Congress due to inequality in the size of the two countries.²² Markedly, the value made several scholars reach the conclusion that Canada is casting its destiny and fortune on the North American winds at all the time. The figures upon analysis by a Canadian auditor indicated a great loss. Nevertheless, trade between the two countries thrived well, leading to the eventual integration of political systems too. Precisely, NAFTA was and still is a good idea for tackling the North American regional issues.

When George W. Bush ascended to power, the relations between the two countries worsened, especially after the September 2001 extremist assaults on Washington and New York, as Canada blatantly refused to support the US in the Iraqi war. Notably, Canada saw the move as so aggressive and solely meant to serve the interests of the US. Canada did not help since it had sent its soldiers to Afghanistan in reaction to the 9/11 attack in the US.

Dyment reports that Canada, under the leadership of Prime Minister Jean Chretien, declined to participate in the 2003 war against Iraq; they viewed this move as an act of fighting for a nation’s interest. Failure of Canada to participate in the campaign led to their rebuke by the US ambassador to Canada. In addition, upon the declaration of Canada’s non-partisan decision on the US program to construct a ballistic missile defense shield widened the rift between the two countries until the end of Bush’s term.

The start of enhanced dealings and associations between the US and Canada rejuvenated upon the swearing-in of Barrack Obama as the President of the US in 2009. The two governments continue to enjoy good relationships, always working together to improve the security and infrastructure through the sharing of information necessary to achieve valid results. For instance, the two countries lobbied to construct a new bridge at the border’s busiest crossing site, between Windsor and Detroit, with the objective of preventing the invasion of criminals and terrorists without interfering with trade or tourism. The interaction between the Americans and the Canadians continues to strengthen with the reign of Barrack Obama, making more trade ties aimed at improving the economic status of the two countries.

The Canadian government, through its Prime Minister Stephen Harper, prioritizes the export of energy by constructing the Keystone XL pipeline that connects Alberta oil sands to American markets in order to facilitate the transportation of oil.²³ This aims at improving the economic relations between the countries, boosting their financial income from such resources. Conversely, the idea received strong criticism from both the Canadian officials as well as from some members of the US Congress. Eventually, there arose difficulties in the relationship between countries on the oil linkage with President Barack Obama rejecting an original proposal from the TransCanada Corporation. Besides, the President shows reluctance to the signing of the revised version. The postponement frustrates Harper. Harper publicly declares that Canada would not take a ‘no’ answer on the Keystone XL.

Presently, Canada is the third-largest trading partner to the United States in goods and services. Moreover, it fosters greater economic integration among the participating countries providing a greater competitive advantage. The relationship between Canada and the United States is characterized by numerous tensions about specific incidences. However, the two countries show better relationships, which is likely to progress in the future even though it is difficult to predict their future relations. The two countries demonstrate proud sovereignty limiting their peaceful living and ability to trade constantly with one another. Over time, the two countries differed on different aspects of the partnership. Fortunately, they had set strategies that enabled them to reconcile and move on with their operations.

Bibliography

“Beyond the Border Implementation Report”. White House. 2015. Web.

Dyment, David. Doing the Continental A New Canadian-American Relationship. Toronto: Dundurn Press, 2010. Web.

Etzioni, Amitai. How Patriotic Is the Patriot Act?: Freedom Versus Security in the Age of Terrorism. New York: Routledge, 2004. Web.

Hufbauer, Gary Clyde, and Jeffrey Schott. NAFTA Revisited Achievements and Challenges. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics, 2005. Web.

“Securing and Managing Our Borders“. Homeland Security. 2015. Web.

Villarreal, Angeles, and Ian Fergusson. NAFTA at 20: Overview and Trade Effects. 2015. Web.

Footnotes

“Securing and Managing Our Borders”. Homeland Security. Web.
Ibid.
Amitai Etzioni, How Patriotic Is the Patriot Act?: Freedom Versus Security in the Age of Terrorism (New York: Routledge, 2004), 5.
Ibid.
Ibid., 56.
Ibid., 126.
Beyond the Border Implementation Report”. White House. Web.
Ibid
Ibid
Beyond the Border Implementation Report”. White House.
Angeles Villarreal and Ian Fergusson, NAFTA at 20: Overview and Trade Effects. Web.
Ibid.
Villarreal, Angeles, and Fergusson Ian, NAFTA at 20: Overview and Trade Effects. Web.
Ibid.
Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Jeffrey Schott, NAFTA Revisited Achievements and Challenges (Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics, 2005), 23.
Ibid., 34.
Ibid
Ibid
David Dyment, Doing the Continental A New Canadian-American Relationship (Toronto: Dundurn Press, 2010), 117.
Ibid., 143.
Ibid., 127.
Villarreal and Fergusson, NAFTA at 20: Overview and Trade Effects. Web.
Ibid., 126.

Click Here To Order Now!