CANADIAN BORDER: PROCEED WITH CAUTION

Imagine terrorists trying to smuggle a bomb into the United States. Which
border would they choose -- the Mexican or Canadian?

The Mexican border is monitored carefully for illegal immigrants and drug
smugglers. Much of it is fenced, and our customs and immigration officers
are heavily concentrated there. With sophisticated equipment like
night-vision goggles and heat sensors, border agents search for
sophisticated tunnels, hidden compartments in vehicles and small aircraft.

Our border with Canada, which is three times as long and fenced nowhere, is
handled very differently. Far fewer officers are assigned there, and a
person entering the United States from Canada simply does not receive the
same scrutiny. But there are good reasons for this. No real illegal
immigration problem originates in Canada, and while there is drug
smuggling, it is much less severe than on the southern border. Canada is
also far more difficult than Mexico for an outsider to get to in the first
place, since other than in its far Arctic reaches, the United States is the
only country it borders.

But there have been calls to toughen scrutiny after the recent arrests of
an Algerian man bringing bomb-making materials from British Columbia and a
couple suspected of terrorist ties who were arriving from Quebec. In
response to the threats of terrorism at the millennium, Ray Kelly, the
United States customs commissioner, has temporarily relocated some 300
additional inspectors to our northern border, the right decision under
these unusual circumstances. But is it time to tighten our border with
Canada permanently?

We should think hard before answering yes. Tough border patrols are
expensive, requiring new personnel and equipment. It does no good simply to
shift resources, as would-be terrorists could simply move to different
entry points.

A greater police presence would also alter the rhythm of life on the border
with Canada, which is both our largest trading partner and an easygoing
neighbor. Thousands of tourists a day walk across bridges from one side of
Niagara Falls to the other, Great Lakes boaters zip back and forth across
the frontier, and some Americans make half-hour international trips to pick
up Canadian bacon for dinner.

Tougher security would mean not only disrupting this harmony and slowing
trade, but also delaying many more law-abiding Americans and others to ask
detailed questions. An unfortunate few might even be strip-searched,
X-rayed or worse.

There is also the risk that the police would use racial, ethnic or
religious profiles in choosing whom to stop and search. I know from
personal experience how problematic it is when you fit a profile. For my
law-enforcement related work, I travel frequently. I appear to fit many
ethnic categories -- Mideastern, Hispanic and black. I have been stopped,
questioned or searched as many as a dozen times in the United States,
Germany, France and Bulgaria. After the fourth time, I began to feel that
my privacy was being unfairly invaded, and I wondered: Why me?

It would be costly to believe that the fight against terrorism can be won
at the borders alone. We should pause before we sacrifice more of the
benefits of living in a democratic society. Any threat of terrorism must be
balanced against the costs.