This comment by Jim Jatras is too important to let it be lost in our comment stream:
To Tim, Petros et al.at IBS:
The organizers at George Mason Law School inform me that the video of the event will be posted in a few weeks. Yes, it was great to have a chance to offer a few points directly to Prof. Harvey and Jesse Eggert at Treasury. Once the video is up, we can let viewers to decide who might be a flake and who is not.
Bottom line from the event is that it confirmed my sense going in of FATCA’s extreme political vulnerability and ripeness for repeal — if financial institutions (both US and non-US) and foreign governments would stop acting as, in effect, FATCA enablers. Most significant: Prof. Harvey, Mr. Eggert, and pretty much everyone admitted in substance that FATCA as written can’t be enforced. IGAs (intergovernmental agreements) are essential for the US to implement what would otherwise be an unenforceable regime. No one pretended that FATCA could be successfully enforced solely as a unlilateral and direct U.S. imposition. Either Washington will be successful in pressuring or tricking other countries into enforcing FATCA on themselves, or the whole scheme collapses.
As such, IGAs – such as the one finalized with the UK (though Parliament still needs approve it) and being negotiated with many other governments – are positively counterproductive for foreign firms and governments. They have the effect of rescuing FATCA.
But as I pointed out — and no one disputed — IGAs have another, unintended consequence: they repatriate FATCA’s costs to U.S. Under “original FATCA,” as enacted, American firms’ costs were relatively minimal, basically as a withholding agent for “recalcitrant” foreign firms, which would bear the vast bulk of the costs. But under the IGAs, similar obligations would be imposed on US domestic firms for reporting non-US residents’ data to the IRS, for transfer to foreign governments. (Indeed, under Article 6 of the “reciprocal” version of the IGA, the U.S. commits to achieving full reciprocity in data exchange with the “partner” country.) These costs – which would be passed on to American consumers – could be massive, since US firms will have to report on multiple countries, not just one. Not only will this be quite costly and invasive for American domestic institutions, it would be especially problematic for non-bank institutions (e.g., insurance companies, pension funds) that don’t routinely collect the kind of anti-money-laundering and “know your client” information banks do.
So Treasury faces a conundrum. On the one hand, FATCA can’t succeed without going down the IGA road. On the other hand, IGAs mean that FATCA costs that originally would be carried almost entirely by FFIs are now to be imposed here in the U.S. That changes the political landscape to FATCA’s detriment.
As IBS participants are aware, very little about any of this has appeared in the U.S. media. (And most of what has appeared are thinly veiled ads by compliance vendors – tax lawyers, accountants, etc. – who expect to educate their kids and retire on FATCA.) Americans only dimly perceive the looming threat to their privacy, pocket books and personal freedom. But if this were well-publicized through an active media campaign, that could change – and help set the stage for FATCA’s demise. But because U.S. interests are not (yet) sufficiently alerted to the this danger, I believe it is vital that non-US financial interests provide the catalytic initial support. Unfortunately, that has not yet happened. Instead (perhaps not fully appreciating that ours is not a parliamentary system) foreign firms are still begging their governments to negotiate with the Americans for relief — leading to the counterproductive IGAs.
As indicated on my site http://www.repealfatca.com, a place-holder for a campaign aimed at arousing U.S., there has only begun some pushback on FATCA based on repatriation of the outrageous costs FATCA would impose. IBS readers are of course familiar with the July 25 letter to Secretary Timothy Geithner from Rand Paul (R-KY) and three colleagues, just prior to the release of the “model” agreements. (Also, I thank IBS for bringing to my attention the letter from Rep Dave Reichert, with whom I plan to follow up, along with other Ways and Means Committee offices with whom I’m in contact.). Treasury’s answer to Rand Paul and his colleagues earlier this month is entirely inadequate and ignores entirely the Senators’ questions about costs, and other touchy issues. (At the George Mason event I argued about this with Mr. Eggert.) Treasury’s avoidance of talking about domestic costs is significant, as it flags a key, possibly fatal FATCA vulnerability.
The kind of pressure evidenced by the Paul-plus-three and Reichert letters could increase dramatically and be combined with legislative initiatives to stymie FATCA’s enforcement and help lead to its repeal. (Also, remember that we’re about to have an election, which also could change the landscape with respect to FATCA.) There is a standard panoply of techniques used in concert with lobbying Congress to achieve the passage – or repeal – of legislation. These include hearings, ordering cost/benefit studies (which never was done for FATCA), withholding enforcement funding, freezing Executive Branch nominations, and perhaps most importantly, blocking implementation of the IGAs as the “weak link” in the FATCA enforcement plan, combined with a vigorous PR campaign to “brand” FATCA as (this is only slightly hyperbolic) the worst law ever. But this requires a serious, sustained – and funded – on-the-ground Congressional lobbying and media effort. Simply writing letters to Congress explaining why FATCA is bad cannot accomplish the needed task, especially if they represent only the concerns of foreign (or for that matter, expat) interests.
We hear all the time that “FATCA is here to stay” – mostly, as I say, from practitioners with a pecuniary interest in a very expensive FATCA regime, many of them non-Americans with no experience with the US political system. But based on my experience, I am convinced repeal is a realistic outcome – if there is launched a campaign comparable to other projects for the passage or repeal of legislation. Unfortunately, while impacted firms (mainly foreign ones, but American too) have already spent millions sending pointless comment letters to Treasury and gearing up for compliance to the tune of untold billions of dollars in the aggregate, and millions per institutions, none has yet seen fit to commit a small fraction of this to exploiting FATCA’s manifest vulnerabilities.
Indeed, by point of comparison, there are significant examples of the sudden house-of-cards collapse of what had been considered unassailable initiatives, once an intelligent and active campaign to that end was launched:
a. The Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988-89 (“Rarely has a Government program that promised so much to so many fallen apart so fast.” Unlike FATCA, the Catastrophic Coverage Act – which was repealed 17 months after it was enacted – had a clear and identifiable set of beneficiaries.
b. Dubai Ports World debacle of 2005-2006. (As it happens, I had a hand in killing the Dubai Ports World deal, despite the solid support for it from the White House of George W. Bush, Congressional majorities in both the Senate and House and Republicans and Democrats alike, and editorial support from publications including the Financial Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, The Economist, and top commentators including Tony Snow, Thomas Friedman, Rush Limbaugh, former president Jimmy Carter, Senator John Warner, and Bill O’Reilly. In addition Senator John McCain stated he believed Americans “should trust the President on this issue.” In the end, they didn’t.)
Dramatic turnarounds of this sort aren’t automatic or easy. Nor is the outcome certain. But what is certain now, is that if a repeal campaign is not launched, Treasury will continue with its methodical campaign to pull country after country into IGAs and eventually solidify a “global FATCA” – an outcome that might have been averted with some active and intelligent opposition in the US.
That said, based on the observations above, there is enough reason to suggest that that in addition to spending huge sums of money on FATCA compliance – already described as a practitioners’ “gold rush,” especially for tax lawyers – devoting a comparatively small amount to seeing if this costly nightmare can be averted altogether. For large firm the difference between compliance and supporting a repeal effort could be one between hundreds of millions of dollars versus tens of thousands of dollars.
My guess is that FATCA could probably be repealed in about a year – before the most draconian regulations go into force – with an effort costing between $50 and $100 thousand per month. Obviously, the more money devoted to the effort, the greater the likelihood and speed of success. Even if a foreign interest takes the lead in launching the effort, a coalition of interests – including domestic American ones – is important. To put it bluntly, Congress will respond to concerns of costs inflicted on U.S. domestic interests, they are far less concerned about costs imposed on foreign interests.
This also relates to some criticism I’ve seen on IBS and elsewhere regarding my focus on costs to firms and not, specifically, the unfair costs FATCA imposes on (for example) expats and dual nationals in Canada and elsewhere, not to mention related issues stemming from American worldwide taxation. Short answer: I am interested in solving this problem. Like it or not, the fact is that the legitimate complaints expats have about FATCA and related impositions cannot get FATCA repealed – but the ones I have pointed to have that potential. Moreover, unlike individual expats, the impacted financial interests have the resources to support the kind of effort needed at cost far less than they are facing to comply with FATCA. To put it another way: if you are an expat or dual national in Canada or somewhere else, focusing on how FATCA unfairly injures you is not going to relieve you of that injury. Instead, you need to think of who you know in the banking, insurance, pension, investment, etc., industry, either in the U.S. or abroad, and suggest that they would be protecting their own interests (not to mention yours) by jumping off the IGA and compliance hamster-wheel and freeing up some resources to bringing FATCA down.
Two closing thoughts:
First: No doubt some will read this and say, “Sure, he tags tax lawyers, accountants, and so forth with lucrative motives, but isn’t he also just trying to drum up business?” Of course. But let me note that not only is what I am proposing far less costly than the truly obscene amounts that would be spent on compliance, the purpose would be to relieve what I sincerely believe to be a tragic mistake. One of the lawyers at the George Mason event, at the opening of the second panel, posed the relative costs of FATCA as a projected $1 trillion worldwide versus a projected recovery of lost taxes at less than $1 billion a year. It doesn’t take a math genius to figure out this is a bad exchange, since that $1 trillion will be spent on an activity that contributes absolutely nothing to the American or global economy other than compliance with the FATCA edict itself. In comparison, I would not be continually beating this drum (at the risk of “flake” characterizations) unless I believed I was offering the “right” product to the marketplace, not only from a business perspective but morally.
Second: As I mentioned in closing at the George Mason event, a few months ago a U.S. financial industry lobbyist in Washington told me that he thought FATCA would be repealed in the end, but it would follow the trajectory of the Catastrophic Coverage Act. That is, it would be pulled back after it had turned into a horrendously expensive global train wreck. My thought is, wouldn’t it be better to save the time and cost – not to mention the economic wellbeing of who knows how many individual persons – by undertaking that now, and not waiting until today’s foolhardiness had matured into tomorrow’s catastrophe?
I believe that persuading the average American that F.A.T.C.A. isn’t a case of a wrong being righted is going to be hard. The battle can only be won if it can shown how the costs of implementing this piece of legislation will have to be born by your average American depositor. Probably the other angle is to recruit recent immigrants to the U.S. who will be saddled with “stranded” assets and unable to send money home to their needy relatives.
KUDOS
Mr Jatras’ insights should be a wake-up call to the Canadian government, but who’s to know if they’re sleeping? I sent his comments off to John Weston MP.
I object to the entire tone of this response. The entire gist is that somehow the solution lies within the system. Take the last few sentences:
“a few months ago a U.S. financial industry lobbyist in Washington told me that he thought FATCA would be repealed in the end, but it would follow the trajectory of the Catastrophic Coverage Act. That is, it would be pulled back after it had turned into a horrendously expensive global train wreck. My thought is, wouldn’t it be better to save the time and cost – not to mention the economic wellbeing of who knows how many individual persons – by undertaking that now, and not waiting until today’s foolhardiness had matured into tomorrow’s catastrophe?”
FATCA is the pimple on the wart on the cyst in the boil of the corrupted system. What about extraterritorial taxation? What about the war on terror and the war on drugs and the war for diversity? Fine, maybe if Romney gets elected and the system doesn’t collapse then FATCA might be repealed if we support the right lobbyists who know the ins and outs of the system.
Whoopie do, I have already been forced to renounce, and just repealing FATCA will hardly change anything materially for my children or grand children
*Besides the obvious costs of FATCA and its “sledgehammer to swat a mosquito” approach, don’t forget that if non-US countries and firms choose not to comply with FATCA and IGAs (for whatever reason), it will mean a sudden exodus of foreign investment funds from U.S. stock and bond markets that will result in a crash in values of almost all Americans’ 401(k)s, as well as even greater difficulties for already underfunded state and local governments’ pension liabilities . Such an event would provide the political impetus and “cover” for FATCA’s repeal. Keep on the lookout for indignant politicians claiming they “knew all along” it was a bad law (though none of them dare step forward today and say this).
Mr. Jatras rightly points out that we, “the expats”, are merely collateral damage and of little significance in the fight against the absurdity of FATCA — and those who can make a difference, as well as fund the effort.
It is well past time that our governments look at the outrageous costs to countries outside the US in implementing US FATCA, leaking our scarce funds to the US.
That the US can trick other countries into paying the cost of FATCA is immoral. This should be a cost borne by the US — and all of the US taxpayers, including us — the expats, should know this. Reciprocal agreements for FATCA, IGAs, may wake up the homelanders to the fact that it will be their cost as the US will now have to comply to other countries — no longer a one-way street.
It’s past time for responsible journalists and responsible government representatives to get busy and tell this important story and do the work they are paid or elected to do in the best interests of those they are supposed to serve: the little guy as well as the big guy – the financial institutions.
– Make all aware of the benefit compared to the cost of FATCA.
– Make all aware just who will be bearning the cost for this. If it is to be other countries as the wily USA planned, wake up ALL who bank in those other countries to their (everyone’s) share of the cost.
-If FATCA is only going to work with IGAs, wake up the US homelanders to the fact that FATCA exists and it looks like their Congressmen’s plan may have already backfired. Let them know this too will be a huge extra cost to the US economy and the US deficit — see above for telling them about the cost/benefit that should have been done for FATCA before rolling it out.
-Time is of the essence.
@calgary411,
No. The simple fact is that “compliance is tantamount to planting a U.S. flag on our sovereign soil”. The CBA is committing a crime in complying to the wishes of a foreign taxation entity. The right thing to do would be
a) as Singapore’s bank did – tell the United States to take a flying leap with FATCA and stick it where the sun don’t shine.
b) level criminal charges against those who would be complicit with the IRS and flout Canadian Banking Privacy laws.
That is all that needs to be done and every other country needs to follow that lead.
The US is just behaving like an 800lb toddler throwing a temper-tantrum and hoping that it’s aggressive, belligerent posturing will get it what it wants. Repeal of FATCA is possible, but only if the world’s biggest trading partner with the US stands up for its territorial sovereignty. Unfortunately, Canada has had a very bad track record of rolling over and doing whatever the “800 lb toddler” wants done.
@Animal,
I don’t want compliance either. I want the story properly told and, hopefully, a resultant outcry for those who will pay for the absurdity — all taxpayers wherever they may be:
– ALL taxpayers of other countries (and not the USA) for full FATCA as conceived
OR
– ALL US taxpayers if the IGAs are put into place to change the rules for all financial institutions within the US.
Yes, our governments should stand up and say NO. Will they?
What Jim Jatras is saying is that FATCA is a flawed piece of legislation. The United States is an entity that is rotted from the inside out. And that is something coming from a former United States government official (or is it “staff”?).
I don’t want FATCA implemented or retained in ANY SHAPE or form. What I want is for that flawed piece of legislation to be given the “bullet to the back of the head” as it so rightly deserves and be buried under a mile-high mound of excrement.
@all- I compare F.A.T.C.A. to like the U.S. laying a bunch of floating mines, the 30% withholding, in the world’s financial system. If we let the U.S. financial markets stand in for the, Straits of Hormuz, and the U.S. for Iran. Then we can follow through with the analogy and ask ourselves, why is it that if the U.S. will not allow Iran to mine the Straits of Hormuz, should the world allow the U.S. to set a F.A.T.C.A mine in the U.S. financial markets which are used by the whole world?
I believe that it is obvious that the U.S. financial markets are just as important to the world economy as the Straits of Hormuz are to world energy markets. The 30% withholding is a tax that is being levied under DURESS, on the financial assets of another country. I believe that it is this element of duress that in a court of law should make F.A.T.C.A legislation illegal.
Even if another country signs an I.G.A. with the U.S. it would not negate F.A.T.C.A.’s involuntary nature. Levying a penalty without having to prove the commission of a crime is something that we asssociate with totalitarian governments and not Western democracies. Maybe the U.S. needs to relinquish its role as the leader and examplar of freedom to the Free World?
It would seem that contrary to Candidate Romney’s protestations to the contrary that the U.S. DOES dictate to the world and not just free the world from dictators. The U.S. may in fact be the world’s biggest dictator.
Good time for NorthernShrike’s excellent comment:
@Petros,
Is there any way we can get Tim’s original post comment stream onto this one and not lose our dialogue with Jim Jatras? He’s left an invitation to contact him ‘with respect to my direct contact with CBA, I’d prefer to communcate about that offline. My direct contact information is available here:http://sspa.squiresanders.com/professionals/professionals_detail.aspx?attorney=6014 . Feel free to drop me a note (that goes for others on IBS) and I’m available via email or phone.’
I think Jatras gives us a good dose of political reality about how to kill a flawed bill. Repeal of FATCA doesn’t solve everything for Expats, but it does reduce the damage and the leverage power of Congress and the IRS to cause harm. I think his comments bear due consideration.
DATCA is the cost repatriated that he speaks of, and there in is the vulnerability of the IGAs that needs to be exploited.
I see now, New Zealand wants an IGA, literally the Sheep following the Australia example and the other EU countries. This just expands the growing FCC (FATCA Compliance Complex) that will forever suckle off the Government Regulation Teat for nourishment. Once fully in place, undoing it is really going to be real hard. Look at our War of Drugs. What is the chance of repealing that one now after 50 years of failure and huge cost.
We need more Congressman like Reichart raising the alarm as posted here and later here.
After reading Jim’s comments, I decided to put out a few calls to people I’ve interviewed in the past about FATCA, and this is what I learned:
1. Current rumour: the final regs which IRS promised by the end of September have been delayed until Q1 2013, and the implementation dates will also be delayed.
2. Canadian banks, etc. are sticking to their position that they need 18 months to prepare AFTER the final IRS regs are published.
3. There is no US/Canada IGA on the horizon, although the two sides are still talking. Very little scuttlebutt on what’s happening on this front.
4. Canadian FFIs would still prefer an IGA to no IGA because lack of an IGA vastly complicates their lives (and puts them at HUGE risk of having to pick between US and Cdn law).
I got no sense from anyone that they think this is going away, although there are fingers crossed that something will happen in the US to derail the train wreck. Many smaller Canadian FFIs are not prepared to devote resources to this until the rules are nailed down.
If I can pin any of this down, I will — for now it’s just educated guesses and rumour from people involved in the process. I suspect the postponement of final regs is real because — well, it was supposed to be out by now. Consensus seems to be that it will take some US domestic fallout to pull this back.
DW
@Arrow…
FYI, I just posted about the new FATCA timelines here….
@Arrow
#2 is confirmed by someone we know at RBC Dominion who said they are currently ‘doing nothing’ about FATCA.
@
calgary411The Animal,Gosh, I reluctantly must correct you on your item a.
a) as Singapore’s bank did – tell the United States to take a flying leap with FATCA and stick it where the sun don’t shine.
The author of the story you got that headline from at Business Insider was wishful thinking, or extrapolating that they might do that, as they took a stand against a Frank Dodd Provision. Now that might be significant, but it is not FATCA. How I wished it were. He says…
Yet just yesterday, DBS Bank in Singapore stood up to the US government, indicating that they would not be registering with US authorities for at least for one Dodd Frank provision pertaining to swaps. Nordea Bank in Sweden made a similar statement.
Read more: http://www.sovereignman.com/expat/singapore-bank-to-uncle-sam-stick-it-where-the-sun-dont-shine-9028/#ixzz2AGv09xiD
He further says…
If more banks follow DBS and Nordea in standing up to the US government, it will be the clearest sign yet that this trend is taking hold…
and then, this always bugs me, he trys to sell you a product..
So, I was initially drawn in too, until I read more carefully. Sorry.
*Arrow
I’ll second Just Me’s comment. Jim Calvin at Calvin on Fund Tax just posted that Jesse Eggert of Treasury(who debated JIm Jatras earlier in the week)said the final regs won’t be out until the end of the year. However, as I commented on Calvin’s blog I think your Q1 2013 date might turn out to be more accurate. Additionally the draft FFI agreement for institutions in non IGA jurisdictions won’t be published until after the final regs which probably means at the very least Q1 2013 for the draft FFI agreement. As Steven Mopsick said many many months ago the FFI agrements are actually more important than the final regs. Of course as I also commented on Calvin’s if their is a new administration in the US I can’t imagine at the very least that all of these new rules won’t be delayed until at the very least Romney’s people have a chance to review them. Even if Romney isn’t going to repeal FATCA.
@Just Me,
That is The Animal’s comment to me:
(I hadn’t caught that it was re Frank Dodd, not FATCA, although I had previously read the piece Animal referred to.)
@
Jim Jatras,
Keep up the good work – and focus on conflict of laws in Canada…
Canada is a bell-weather jurisdiction for FATCA. It has the largest population of US-born people of any country, many of whom consider themselves to be essentially Canadian, and don’t self-identify as US nationals. Canada is also where FATCA is especially vulnerable to conflict of laws, especially in terms of discrimination by nationality.
Many so-called “US persons” in Canada are in reality long-term Canadian citizens, and many also were simply born in the US while their parents were visiting, or due to cross-border maternity arrangements. Many have no economic nexus with the US, or any connection except place of birth or family relationship.
Because Canada was built as a nation of immigrants, there is sensitivity regarding discrimination based upon nationality or place of origin. The idea of Canadian banks – or any other institution – singling out certain Canadians based upon place of birth – is discrimination by nationality and a violation of the substantive equity guaranteed by Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The idea that a Canadian bank would ask their Canadian citizen customers if they are a “Chinese person” or a “Pakistani person”, and then subject them to privacy violations or account closure based upon nationality, is repugnant and illegal in Canada. The concept of “US person” has no legal standing in Canadian law. And Canadian banks generally have no record of their customers’ nationality.
With FATCA, the US has unwittingly unleashed a trade war upon the world’s financial institutions. Many in Europe are already embargoing any person with a US connection. That is likely an opening salvo; expect embargoes and boycotts and other retaliatory measures.
@Just Me —
Guess my timing was pretty good. The people I talked to had not seen that release (and neither had I!). I think that’s a record (for me) for rumour confirmation; usually it takes a few days.
@bubblebustin —
Now that’s interesting. I knew the little guys were keeping the lid on, but if RBC is doing that you can bet the others are too. I wish I could dig out someone who knows what Flaherty is up to (and will blab, of course).
BTW — I now have an official request in to the Vancouver consulate for the latest renounce/relinquish numbers; they told me today they would respond to it.
*Arrow
Remember, a couple of months ago when nothing much was going on with FATCA I wrote a post talking about how Canada was about to legalize single sports betting via a private members bill and apparently the US government or the major sports leagues had not done anything to stop it. Well according to my sources and from what I read in the Globe and Mail the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL in their infinite wisdom of not thinking that much about Canadian politics didn’t even know until a few days ago what we were about to do(The President of the Toronto Blue Jays and General Counsel of Major League Baseball testified in Ottawa tonight that they didn’t even know about this bill until last weekend). Unfortionately for them they have arrived to the party considerably late. The bill has already past first, second, and third readings in the house unanmously and as one Senator told the President of the Blue Jays it is very difficult to stop it at this point short of some extraordinary intervention with the BC and Ontario governments who are supporting the legislation(The Canadian Senate lacks the legitimacy of its American counterpart to veto legislation passed by the lower house). The rumor I heard though that is quite scintaliting is NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell himself is going to fly to Ottawa to testify in front of the Senate Committee and basically promise Canada ANYTHING(including an NFL team in Toronto) to stop the bill. I will pay big money to see some big shot like Roger Goodell have to haul his ass to Ottawa(on private jet of course) luckily though committee hearings are available for free on ParliVu. Now that is a real negotiation.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/sencommitteebusiness/CommitteeMeetingSchedule.aspx?parl=41&ses=1&Language=E&comm_id=11&pastMeetings=1
wondering says: Because Canada was built as a nation of immigrants, there is sensitivity regarding discrimination based upon nationality or place of origin.
Canada exercises shameless exceptionalism on treatment of nationality with respect to U.S. persons, especially in Ontario, for reasons that have been explored at Brock already. Here’s the basic formula. The hinterlands resent exploitation by central Canada, and central Canada resents its subservience to the United States. Colonies of colonies of colonies. Each powermonger is looking down the food chain for opportunities to extract fodder. Canada is not a “nice” place – it only seems so to some beneficiaries because there is still fiscal elbow room to slosh enough orts out of the swill bucket to pacify most of the peons. Damn the cost to the environment, by the way. Migrated U.S. persons fail to see that their warm fuzzies for Canada derive mostly from how horrible the United States is by comparison. Hell makes limbo look delightful. Greedy masters have been twisting away at that elbow room ever since the middle of the past century. ConfederateH nails the sources of the Canadian elbow room, especially the ratio of resource base to population and the lack of absolutely insane military spending levels.
@usxcanada:
“Canada is not a “nice” place – it only seems so to some beneficiaries because there is still fiscal elbow room to slosh enough oats out of the swill bucket to pacify most of the peons.”
Well said. Here is a strange reason why Canada IS a nice place:
Moynihan’s Law of the Canadian Border
Even if there are no benefits of this, it causes a world wide tribute and submission to the whims of the USA, and helps groom and reinforce the concept of polite “global compliance” to the whims of the all-mighty, new-god-on-the -block, USA!