Rafting the Border

[EdB]

I mean, by simple definition - if you are boating the Rio Grande then you are crossing into Mexico - probably illegally since it is not a port of entry. Thus, you need to go to Presidio and start boating from there or go to Del Rio and go up stream from that point...

I think that the Rio Grande and the Boundary Waters are giving DHS/CBP fits...

Not quite, at least to my understanding. I can only speak to the Boundary Waters issue, but I suspect the answer is the same for the Rio Grande. Unless you set foot on Canadian soil, you are not required to go through customs (Canadian or U.S.). Technically, while on the water you are considered in transit so it doesn't matter if you cross the border or not.

I don't know for certain what the rule is for anyone setting foot on Mexican soil, but earlier this year Big Bend River Tours told me the passport rule was suspended until June '09. Presumably if/when it is instituted for real, outfitters will probably require passports to cover themselves in case someone touches Mexican soil, but private boaters can probably ignore the passport requirement if they're staying on the U.S. side.

[Al]

Next time I canoe the Rio Grande, I'm bringing my passport.

Al

[SHANEA]

Not quite, at least to my understanding. I can only speak to the Boundary Waters issue,

Seems to be some confusion on this also based on a number of sites that I have looked at.  Some say you have to have it now, some say no, some say 2009? 

Russell Black, an avid kayaker from Faribault, Minn., is among the confused. He intended to go kayaking this summer in the Boundary Waters that straddle Minnesota and Canada but scrapped the plans after learning he would need a passport.

  http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2007-01-18-passport-changes_x.htm  2007 Article...

http://www.boundarywatersblog.com/?item=the-i-68

What does “meaningful departure” from the US mean?

This means that the person or persons have stopped on Canadian soil, dropped an anchor in Canada waters, or met with another boat in Canadian waters.

Interesting comment from another Shane - not me...   

So here I am last year at the Height of Land Portage between South and North lakes. I am just barely standing on the Canadian side for the picture. So if I were to do this again this year, I would have to call and report I made ONE step and am now back in the USA??? Is this correct? If so, what a complete joke!

Sounds like terrorists should find the Boundary Waters as an ideal method for infiltrating the USofA...   A Taliban in every canoe...   
Better build a fence/wall.  Better close off the entire area - just like they did to La Linda, Santa Elena, and Boquillias. 

Should weekly fishing guests and homeowners call in to the customs office every time they return to the US from Canadian waters?

Yes, this is the main purpose for an  I-68.  Each time a person makes a meaningful departure from the US , he/she will need to call in and report the return.  These persons should have an I-68.

The honor system.  I'm sure the Taliban will abide by this...   

[EdB]

Seems to be some confusion on this also based on a number of sites that I have looked at.  Some say you have to have it now, some say no, some say 2009? 

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cbpmc/cbpmc_2223.html

Go down a couple lines to the land and sea travel section, and it says until June 1 '09 you can cross the border by land or sea with a gov't issued photo ID along with proof of citizenship (birth certificate) or a passport, passport card, or WHTI document. On June 1 '09, the gov't photo ID/birth certificate option goes away.

The info I posted re: checking in at customs along the Canadian border came from phone calls I made to the U.S. and Canadian offices up there. They said nothing about anchoring or meeting another boat but that's not surprising since I explained I was kayaking on the American side and would maybe cross the border while passing through a couple narrow sections. I've seen a lot of guides talk about going through customs which I didn't understand, but I now realize it's because of the anchoring stipulation. I would assume, perhaps incorrectly, that regs are the same for the Mexican border, and since anchoring or meeting another boat aren't realistic options for the usual Rio Grande crowd, it's probably safe to say you don't need anything for now unless you set foot in Mexico (and are seen doing so).

As for Mr. Black.... he doesn't sound like the brightest bulb on the tree. Cancelling a summer trip in January because he doesn't know the process? "I don't want to get out there and get caught without a passport. " Then go get one you dumba$$. You've got 5-6 months to do it. 

[presidio]

The article cleverly avoids any discussion of the border closure

Perhaps because it's just an article about someone enjoying the experience of floating down the river. Some people get enjoyment from being outdoors, perhaps you've heard of them? 

Here's one of the pages Presidio was quoting:

A good destination is Fern Canyon, a beautiful side canyon approximately two miles upstream, which has ferns growing where water is seeping out of the canyon walls. A backcountry use permit is required for all river trips; no fee is charged for day-use trips.

I must have missed the part where it encouraged hiking in Fern Canyon. Maybe Presidio was extrapolating since other NPS web pages talk about hiking.

It's right there in the quote. That glowing description about the 'beautiful side canyon' doesn't make you want to go explore (hike it)? Call it extrapolation if you want, but the NPS clearly is encouraging people to enter (illegally under the current rules) and hike in Mexico. If such were not the case, why even mention the canyon? It's not part of the park.

I'm too lazy to dig around for the page talking about campsites while rafting. Maybe he'll be kind enough to provide links to his sources, assuming he can stomach reading the NPS pages again.

Certainly.

http://www.nps.gov/bibe/planyourvisit/river-camping.htm

To minimize confrontations between boaters, vehicle campers, ranchers, Mexican military, fisherman, smugglers, and day use visitors, river trips are advised against camping in areas that are accessible by vehicle on either side of the river. Camping at these sites on the Texas side is prohibited, and is strongly discouraged on the Mexican side of the river.

Beyond whatever warning value the information has, it clearly shows that there is official recognition that boaters are entering Mexico and there are no controls affecting such use. Of course, it's not practical or possible to stay on the north half of the river, so again, there is tacit acceptance by the park and DHS that this will occur. Crossing the border by whatever means is crossing the border. My point is that such activity is no less a 'security' issue (as the government likes to define these things) than any of us going for the taco and beer in Boquillas (and there is NOT a security issue at play here....only politics).

If boaters can cross the line, everyone should be able to (or no one should).

[presidio]

"(temporarily crossing into Mexico to camp on the Mexican side while on a river trip is leagl as long as you complete and file a Customs Declaration after your trip.)" 

So, this means that if I cross the river at Boquillas, using a boat...thus making it a river trip, camp on the sand bar for the night and then file the declaration.....I am good to go. I doubt anyone at the park or DHS will see it that way.

There is a level of stupidity about all this that just defies logic.

The real reason, beyond the fact that crossing the boundary on a river trip is inevitable, is that while officialdom can keep an eye on you at the former informal crossings, no one ever sees (or rarely so) anyone cross the line on a float trip. That being the case, it is easier to ignore the fact and pretend it isn't important (and it really isn't...for the informal crossings as well).

Like much of everything else that passes for 'necessary' security measures, it is mostly for show rather than effect.

[presidio]

I mean, by simple definition - if you are boating the Rio Grande then you are crossing into Mexico - probably illegally since it is not a port of entry. Thus, you need to go to Presidio and start boating from there or go to Del Rio and go up stream from that point...

I think that the Rio Grande and the Boundary Waters are giving DHS/CBP fits...

Yep. Water boundaries present issues that are poorly addressed by Customs/Immigration rules. Only on a water boundary does informal (and commercial) recreational use occur. Think about it. How many people go out in NM, AZ or CA and walk along the land boundary, weaving back and forth across the line? Almost no one. Sure it happens occasionally and in places like the Glamis dunes in CA where the line is in blow sand, it would be quite easy to have an analog for using the river....but generally, people do not congregate on land borders for recreation. They do congregate in order to cross the line for whatever purpose.

So, everything you see on this issue is gobbledygook as the government tries to force fit a policy meant for true international travel, onto a rather unique, small and mostly irrelevant set of circumstances. The likelihood of a 'terrorist' threat crossing at Boquillas is the same as a terrorist floating down the river before entering. You can never say it wouldn't happen, but the odds are so infinitesimal as to effectively be zero.

The huge disconnect comes when people who want to go for the taco are denied access while boaters are not. There is NO fundamental difference between the two, but it is made a big deal with threats of arrest and prosecution for one group and a pass for the other.

Folks who do not see a problem with that truly do not understand how personal and civil freedoms are incrementally being chipped away by semantics and eager regulators.

[SHANEA]

Folks who do not see a problem with that truly do not understand how personal and civil freedoms are incrementally being chipped away by semantics and eager regulators.

Well said.   

[RichardM]

Folks who do not see a problem with that truly do not understand how personal and civil freedoms are incrementally being chipped away by semantics and eager regulators.

Well said.  

Personally I would rather see efforts made to restore the informal crossings rather than removing the "right" of boaters to cross over. Denying boaters access to the river banks does not get me any closer to being allowed to get my taco. In my opinion it's a big step backwards in that regard.

[SHANEA]

Folks who do not see a problem with that truly do not understand how personal and civil freedoms are incrementally being chipped away by semantics and eager regulators.

Well said.  

Personally I would rather see efforts made to restore the informal crossings rather than removing the "right" of boaters to cross over. Denying boaters access to the river banks does not get me any closer to being allowed to get my taco. In my opinion it's a big step backwards in that regard.

Agreed.  We certainly do NOT want to lose river access and we do not want them to build a fence either.  Imagine what a mess it would be if the fence had of been built around Presidio, it's currently suspended due to cost overruns, and even down lower.  Depending on what type of fence it was, it could have made the flooding much worse.

[RichardM]

Folks who do not see a problem with that truly do not understand how personal and civil freedoms are incrementally being chipped away by semantics and eager regulators.

Well said.  

Personally I would rather see efforts made to restore the informal crossings rather than removing the "right" of boaters to cross over. Denying boaters access to the river banks does not get me any closer to being allowed to get my taco. In my opinion it's a big step backwards in that regard.

Agreed.  We certainly do NOT want to lose river access and we do not want them to build a fence either.  Imagine what a mess it would be if the fence had of been built around Presidio, it's currently suspended due to cost overruns, and even down lower.  Depending on what type of fence it was, it could have made the flooding much worse.

You do realize that Presidio is in favor of "incrementally chipping away" more freedoms by denying boaters access to the other shore, don't you? 

[SHANEA]

Folks who do not see a problem with that truly do not understand how personal and civil freedoms are incrementally being chipped away by semantics and eager regulators.

Well said.  

Personally I would rather see efforts made to restore the informal crossings rather than removing the "right" of boaters to cross over. Denying boaters access to the river banks does not get me any closer to being allowed to get my taco. In my opinion it's a big step backwards in that regard.

Agreed.  We certainly do NOT want to lose river access and we do not want them to build a fence either.  Imagine what a mess it would be if the fence had of been built around Presidio, it's currently suspended due to cost overruns, and even down lower.  Depending on what type of fence it was, it could have made the flooding much worse.

You do realize that Presidio is in favor of "incrementally chipping away" more freedoms by denying boaters access to the other shore, don't you? 

I guess my take on his take is that my reasoning of his reasoning is that there is no reason why we shouldn't be able to cross over to the little hamlets in Mexico w/o having to go to a legal point of entry.  It's the same "concept" of being able to ride the Rio Grande.  Why can't we just fill out a little customs declaration form when we go over and come back - something like a "crossing permit" - just take the river permit and mark through river  and put crossing.  Go over and have some tacos, ride the donkey's into town, pay the man for the river crossing in his flat bottom boat, etc.  The good ole days. 

[cjacob]

So I had a fried who just got back from a boundry waters trip.  They started in Canada and ended up in the US.  After they returned to the US they packed up all their gear prepared to return to Austin.  THEN they drove over the a US customs office to check in.  All they did was fill out a form letting ICE what the agenda timeline was. Hmmmm

With all the DHS people all over BBNP how hard would it be to staff a ICE agent in RGV, and Castolon For 12 hrs a day 7 days a week?  Then we could have our informal crossing back. Figure it this way it would take 5 agents to cover this and allow for vaction and training.

Ok I am off to the office I will see y'all tomorrow.

[presidio]

You do realize that Presidio is in favor of "incrementally chipping away" more freedoms by denying boaters access to the other shore, don't you? 

You absolutely do not grasp my point. I don't want boaters denied access...I want my access restored. However, regardless of which way it were to go, it is equally important that we all play by the same rules. You apparently don't think that's a problem, but it is.

Forcing the issue would result in a great hue and cry from all the boaters and the commercial outfitters. Unless officialdom is made to toe the line on the entire issue, nothing will ever change. You are too ready to do what you are told regardless of whether it should or should not be done. You may be happy to surrender your rights, I'm not.

[presidio]

So I had a fried who just got back from a boundry waters trip.  They started in Canada and ended up in the US.  After they returned to the US they packed up all their gear prepared to return to Austin.  THEN they drove over the a US customs office to check in.  All they did was fill out a form letting ICE what the agenda timeline was. Hmmmm

That's different. It's Canada and all those non-brown folks are not perceived to be a problem. I'm only partly sarcastic here. There are different rules and procedures because it is done and no one complains, and no one is held accountable for their actions since everything is couched as a 'security' issue. I have to constantly remind myself that every single one of the a**holes that delivered 9|11 to our doorstep entered legally, was inspected by customs/immigration (obviously not very capably), and gee...they all came in through the northeast. I don't recall but some may have passed through Canada as well. For all this trouble, the Canadian border is essentially unaffected while the Mexican border gets all the heavy-handed attention.

With all the DHS people all over BBNP how hard would it be to staff a ICE agent in RGV, and Castolon For 12 hrs a day 7 days a week?  Then we could have our informal crossing back. Figure it this way it would take 5 agents to cover this and allow for vaction and training.

The answer obviously is that DHS, ICE and the NPS simply don't want to be bothered with it. They are busy catching terrorists and have no interest in accommodating tourists or the formerly traditional border commerce of these crossings. Consequently, they have choked off 2 insignificant crossings, declared victory in the war on terror by denying taco touristry and have gone home, so to speak, leaving behind dire warning of persecution (not a typo) if you dare try to cross the line (boaters excepted).