Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 10-17-2019, 11:45 PM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nawth Chucka View Post
Extended family traveling together w/ a large amount of cash and no home address sounds like Travelers.
How is this relevant? Irish Travellers are genetically Irish. I have seen pictures of these people and there is nothing remarkable about them other than (IMO) the wife's questionable fashion choices. Not even the Conners are playing the racial/ethnic bias card so why here? If they are Irish Travellers (and there is NO claim or evidence of this) why is their big wad of cash in USD? Was that accidental too?
  #52  
Old 10-18-2019, 12:12 AM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zyada View Post
How does "I tried earlier and failed" lead to "obviously because I failed I'm going to get in illegally"?
This fails to account for known information, the logical fallacy is similar to an argument used by OJ Simpson's lawyers. Only 1 in 10,000 husbands murder their wife, so it's 99.99% probable that our client is innocent! But that's nonsense, because we know Simpson's wife was murdered by someone. When we know a wife was murdered, the probability that her husband was the perpetrator is of the order of 50%.

You are suggesting that what's relevant here is that if we know is that someone tried to enter the U.S. illegally, the chance that they later try to cross the border illegally is very low, perhaps only 1 in 1000 people do this. But that's the wrong analysis, because that's not all we know. We know that they later crossed the border illegally. The only question is whether that illegal crossing was accidental or deliberate, and the fact that they were earlier denied entry makes it >99% certain that it was deliberate. It's not plausible that they all just happened to be later driving at night in a remote location where you can accidentally (if a moose dies in front of your car) be forced to drive across a ditch into the USA.

Last edited by Riemann; 10-18-2019 at 12:17 AM. Reason: i
  #53  
Old 10-18-2019, 12:22 AM
Nawth Chucka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Whites elevated; UT
Posts: 5,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
How is this relevant? Irish Travellers are genetically Irish. I have seen pictures of these people and there is nothing remarkable about them other than (IMO) the wife's questionable fashion choices. Not even the Conners are playing the racial/ethnic bias card so why here? If they are Irish Travellers (and there is NO claim or evidence of this) why is their big wad of cash in USD? Was that accidental too?
I'm not saying ICE pinged them for how they look. Zyada posited that was possible. I'm saying the circumstances make it possible they're Travellers trying to avoid CBP & the cash wasn't an accident b/c they meant to continue on into the States. I haven't seen a picture of them.
  #54  
Old 10-18-2019, 12:48 AM
FoieGrasIsEvil's Avatar
FoieGrasIsEvil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Land of Cheese Coneys
Posts: 18,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by susan View Post
Or that contraband was found in the car. Plenty of things to speculate about that may not be known.
Oh no, not the Canadian hand sanitizer again!
__________________
Posting From Above The Browns
  #55  
Old 10-18-2019, 06:59 AM
Machine Elf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Challenger Deep
Posts: 12,347
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zyada View Post
How does "I tried earlier and failed" lead to "obviously because I failed I'm going to get in illegally"?

For those who think that it was impossible for these people to have done this accidentally, have you looked at the street view? According to what I'm reading, they were found about two feet inside the U.S. border, or at least identified as having entered the U.S. about two feet... at a place where two parallel streets are separated by a ditch.
"Tried earlier and failed" is evidence that they wanted to enter the US. As is the carrying of $16,000 in US currency on a trip out of the UK. IOW, it is evidence of motive.

And yes, I've looked at the streetview. There are only about 2.5 miles of Canadian border-hugging road in that area that are mirrored by a border-hugging road on the US side. And of that 2.5 miles, a lot of it includes a ditch that is deep enough to be impassable for cars; successful cross-border navigation with a car requires being in a spot where the ditch is shallow enough to avoid trapping the car.

So after having been denied entry to the US, this family, quite coincidentally, found themselves driving on a stretch of Canadian border-hugging road.

And not just any stretch of border-hugging road - it's a rare stretch that has matching border-hugging road on the US side.

And not just any rare stretch - it's an extremely rare stretch where the ditch is shallow enough to physically enable vehicle crossings.

And THAT'S the exact location where they claim an animal forced them to swerve.

Instead of hitting the brakes.

The stackup of coincidences stretches credulity to the breaking point.

And then there's the video of their crossing (see at 0:38), which shows that this was not a violent high-speed oh-my-god-look-out-for-the-moose swerve; this was a slow, purposeful, controlled crossing of the shallow ditch between the two roads.
  #56  
Old 10-18-2019, 09:25 AM
Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno View Post
How does that work exactly? Have they tried every tried to cross? Does Canada do a background check on every person crossing the boarder? That doesn't seem plausible. Hell, I know someone who has a DUI, and was stopped at the Canadian border for almost an hour while they conducted a routine search of his large trailer. They had plenty of time to find out if that person had a DUI, but there was never an issue. He entered without incident. I always hear that people with DUIs can't enter Canada, but I've known plenty who have.
Has your sister or husband actually ever been turned away? Or do they just not try?
The US states have misdemeanor and felony offences. Canada and its provinces and territories have summary offences and indictable offences, but we also have hybrid offences that could be prosecuted either summarily or via indictment.

In Canada most of our laws concerning drinking and driving are either hybrid or indictable offences, rather than only summary.

People who are neither Canadian citizens nor permanent residents of Canada are not permitted into Canada if they have been convicted anywhere at any time of an offence that in Canada would be considered to be a hybrid offence or an indictable offence.

This means that a misdemeanor conviction for drunk driving in the USA would be deemed in Canada to be a hybrid offence that would preclude admission into Canada.

The sharing of information between police and immigration on both sides of the border has greatly increased due to agreements between Canada and the USA along with improved record keeping, improved data management and improved telecommunications, so folks who had a teenage misdemeanor drunk driving conviction when they were a teenager sixty years ago now will find themselves being turned back at the Canadian border when the conviction turns up on a data search.

If a person has had such a conviction but can establish that they have redeemed themself, they will be admitted into Canada. At its simplest, this will involve an application fee of about a hundred bucks, a lengthy interview, and some phone calls. If that does not suffice, then the person will be turned back.

The best way to avoid this is to get a pardon in the USA, and apply for and receive your rehabilitation before you try to enter Canada.

A word to the wise. Do not lie when crossing into Canada. Do not make assumptions, such as you're old misdemeanor not mattering (it often does), or that you're 2nd amendment right exists in Canada (it does not), or that you can bring your weapon into Canada because you are a police officer (you cannot, and your weapon will either be seized and destroyed, or it will be delivered to your Chief of Police along with a polite letter).
__________________
Hour after hour, day after day, we paddled and sang and slept under the hot sun on the northern ocean, wanting never to return.

Last edited by Muffin; 10-18-2019 at 09:26 AM.
  #57  
Old 10-18-2019, 10:08 AM
Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dangerosa View Post
Eh, neither my sister or her husband can legally get into Canada (they both have drunk driving arrests) and we spent a week on Rainy Lake crossing back and forth over the border. And I don't know anyone who is a regular Boundary Waters camper who hasn't spent a night on the wrong side of the border when the wind kicks up and it isn't safe to cross back to the U.S. side.

(Up there park rangers tell you to keep to the U.S. side of the lakes for camping, but sometimes that isn't safe - and everyone has been chill about "you are in a canoe, don't put your life in danger trying to get to your own side).

The first time I was in Canada I crossed in near Warroad on a stretch of "road" simply to say I'd been in Canada. There are kids who go to school in Warroad that have to go through Canada on their bus every day.

Its in our best interests to keep that border "ajar" OK, its in the best interests of my friends who don't want to have to canoe a mile across a lake against the wind in a storm.
The international boundary between Lake Superior and Rainy Lake goes up the middle of the lakes and rivers. Crossing without proper authorization is not permitted, but obviously that will not be enforced in a blow. Folks on the wrong side of the border when there is not a genuine need for safe harbour will find themselves in trouble (oln the Canadian side, a request that they move on, or a scolding or a ticket). Note that apart from the international boundary issue, there are also permitting issues by the parks on each side of the border.

This used to be a major trade route, so right of passage through the traditional portages has been protected under the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842 under which many of the border disputes were settled.

Article II
Quote:
It being understood that all the water-communications, and all the usual portages along the line from Lake Superior to the Lake of the Woods; and also Grand Portage, from the shore of Lake Superior to the Pigeon River, as now actually used, shall be free and open to the use of the citizens and subjects of both countries.
It is OK for citizens/subjects of Canada or the USA to use these traditional portages regardless of which side of the border it is on. It is not OK to have a shore lunch or to camp on or by a portage if it is not on your side of the border unless you have obtained the proper permits (and aside from the boundary issue, all the parks frown on using portages for camping).
international and park permits.

And no, the American 2nd amendment does not exist in Canada, so Americans will get in trouble if they are caught on the Canadian side without the proper Canadian permits.
__________________
Hour after hour, day after day, we paddled and sang and slept under the hot sun on the northern ocean, wanting never to return.

Last edited by Muffin; 10-18-2019 at 10:12 AM.
  #58  
Old 10-18-2019, 11:11 AM
Brayne Ded is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 468

Something fishy


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
How is this relevant? Irish Travellers are genetically Irish. I have seen pictures of these people and there is nothing remarkable about them other than (IMO) the wife's questionable fashion choices. Not even the Conners are playing the racial/ethnic bias card so why here? If they are Irish Travellers (and there is NO claim or evidence of this) why is their big wad of cash in USD? Was that accidental too?
I beg to differ. They really do look like Travellers, and the woman in particular looks like a Roma. Maybe the media are being too PC to refer to the matter? and, no home address in the UK? This really is weird.

While the actions of the ICE are questionable in several ways, why did these people cross a ditch and then drive down the US side of the road instead of getting back out of the ditch on the Canadian side?

The moral of story: the US-Canadian needs a fence, just for demarcation purposes.
  #59  
Old 10-18-2019, 11:59 AM
control-z is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 13,006
Their story sounds fishy as hell, but their treatment sounds bad too.
  #60  
Old 10-18-2019, 01:07 PM
Zyada is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Foat Wuth!
Posts: 5,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
This fails to account for known information, the logical fallacy is similar to an argument used by OJ Simpson's lawyers. Only 1 in 10,000 husbands murder their wife, so it's 99.99% probable that our client is innocent! But that's nonsense, because we know Simpson's wife was murdered by someone. When we know a wife was murdered, the probability that her husband was the perpetrator is of the order of 50%.

You are suggesting that what's relevant here is that if we know is that someone tried to enter the U.S. illegally, the chance that they later try to cross the border illegally is very low, perhaps only 1 in 1000 people do this. But that's the wrong analysis, because that's not all we know. We know that they later crossed the border illegally. The only question is whether that illegal crossing was accidental or deliberate, and the fact that they were earlier denied entry makes it >99% certain that it was deliberate. It's not plausible that they all just happened to be later driving at night in a remote location where you can accidentally (if a moose dies in front of your car) be forced to drive across a ditch into the USA.
Remote location? Have you actually looked at the map that was posted?
  #61  
Old 10-18-2019, 01:11 PM
Tibby's Avatar
Tibby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,709
Yes, this story is quite fishy. I’m inclined to believe ICE followed proper procedure in this case.

But, Homeland Security agents are pretty scary.

Years ago I answered the door to loud banging. I was greeted by 4 muscular agents (even the woman agent looked like she could bench press 400lbs) with big guns drawn, and POLICE HOMELAND SECURITY emblazoned on their stab and ballistic vests.

Good golly, what’s this all about?!? I answered the door thinking I’d have to brush off some guy wanting to pressure wash my driveway, or maybe place an order for some Thin Mint girl scout cookies. Looking down the business ends of four 9mm Heckler & Koch MP5 submachine guns was not on my list of “who’s that knocking at my door” possibilities; at least not until I’ve had my first cup of coffee.

...could this be about that Cuban cigar a friend gave me last month? It was a knock-off Cohiba, probably rolled in Tampa—promise!

Tibby: H-Hello?
Agent: [holds a large photo to my face] Do you know this woman?
Tibby: ...uh, yes, that’s our nanny (our live-in au pair from Poland).
Agent: Where did just drive off to?
Tibby: She took my daughters to pre-school.
Agent: When will she be back?
Tibby: In a few minutes, I suppose. What did she...[they cut me off mid-sentence]
Agent: Don’t try to contact her! We’ll be back. [they scatter back into the woodwork]

Gee, I can’t wait...

A few minutes later I answer the door again to loud knocking. Now the 4 agents are holding our nanny. She’s silently crying.

Agent: Can we do this in your house?
Tibby: Do what in my house? Well...ok, but what did she… [they cut me off again and push nanny into the foyer and into the kitchen]
Nanny: I’m so sorry, Mr. Tibby...

Just as they had nanny bent over our kitchen table, reading her rights and cuffing her, my brother-in-law, Art, walked in the back door to the kitchen. He was holding a bag.

Art: You got the coffee brewing, Tibby?...oops…wha?... [the agents point their big guns at Art. Art drops the bag and raises his hands]
Agent (s): Who’s this guy?
Tibby: That’s Art, my brother-in-law. He and my sister are visiting from Pennsylvania.
Agent: What’s in the bag?
Art: B-b-bagels...f-f-from Lox Stock & Bagels…[agent #2 inspects the bag, no doubt pissed there are no donuts in there]
Agent: You can go. [Art tip-toes back out the door, and no doubt swallowed a handful of his heart medicine]

I knew the nanny was pilfering vodka from our liquor cabinet, but I didn’t think that was the reason for her arrest. She was a good nanny...with a bit of a drinking problem. She drank after hours, so it didn’t affect my kids. I felt sorry for her. She had a hard life.

Turns out she was peripherally involved in a major scandal involving the United States Navy. Later on she flipped on bigger fish in the scam and got a reduced sentence. My goofy (now ex) wife hired her back when she got out of prison. Our vodka continued to evaporate. She later started a business selling cupcakes. They were good cupcakes.

So, in this case, DHS was justified in the arrest, but they’re pretty hard core and overly intimidating. But, I must say they were pussycats compared to my later encounters with the FBI.
__________________
“Do you believe in such nonsense?” "No, but they say it works even if you don't believe in it.”—Niels Bohr
  #62  
Old 10-18-2019, 02:32 PM
RaftPeople is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: 7-Eleven
Posts: 6,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zyada View Post
For those who think that it was impossible for these people to have done this accidentally, have you looked at the street view?
Did you watch the video?

They slowly turned and drove across a grassy median/ditch to get to the road on the other side. Not accidental and not normal.
  #63  
Old 10-18-2019, 02:50 PM
Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brayne Ded View Post
I beg to differ. They really do look like Travellers, and the woman in particular looks like a Roma. Maybe the media are being too PC to refer to the matter? and, no home address in the UK? This really is weird.

While the actions of the ICE are questionable in several ways, why did these people cross a ditch and then drive down the US side of the road instead of getting back out of the ditch on the Canadian side?

The moral of story: the US-Canadian needs a fence, just for demarcation purposes.
Fence? We don' need no stinkin' fence!

Back in the day, when my mom was a youngster, she won an international competition in Calais, Maine, for rollerskating backwards with a goblet of water balanced on her forehead. The prize was a live bunny (I don't know if it was supposed to be a pet or dinner, but that's neither hare no there). To make a long story short, she was busted while trying to get back across the Canadian border. I assume that it must have been a descendant of the Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog to require such border enforcement (and come to think of it, that does sound suspiciously like Ganong, which was a major employer in her town), so yes, I'll admit that the security of some of our border crossings is not exactly up to Special Handling Unit level, or Max level, or any level at all.

In fact even today, eight decades later, quite a few of our border crossings still do not even have fence. Some have a phone with a sign politely directing you to give the CBSA a call, while some others simply have a sign politely directing you to come across and report to the nearest office when they are open. I know of a couple where there is not even a requirement to visit or call an office, on the assumption that you will eventually go back where you came from.

But here's the thing: Canada and our southern colonies share a border of a bit under 9,000 km, of which about 3,800 km is internal waters coastline. Our salt water coastline that exposes us to the rest of the world is nearly a quarter of a million km. Fencing that in, or fencing you out, would take a lot of fencing.

Trump has been building a climbing wall for rock climbers to practice on. It is costing Americans about 12.5 million CDN per km, so if Canada were to build a fence it would conservatively (because only a Conservative would do such a thing) cost us about $4.0625E+12 CDN, which equates to about $110,000 CDN per Canadian. That's a lot of money for something that is useless and that interferes with wildlife wanderings, including bunnies.

And then we get into supervision of the fence. Good luck with that.

Now that all being said, we do have some border crossings that have some fence. I can't say if it is to encourage folks entering Canada to take their turn in line rather than run through the woods, or if it is for real security, or if it is just to keep up with the Joneses and their fences on the American side of the border crossings. There is such a fence at the mouth of the Pigeon River that is at the eastern end of the bi-national transportation corridor at the top of Minnesota where the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842 give right of portage on both sides of the border to citizens/subjects of Canada and the USA. But it is not a long fence, and it has a gate. If you want to use the gate to go through the border security fence (for example, to go fishing), all you have to do is ask the CBSA agent in the crossing office to lend you the Key to Canada.

Do you have any idea how many gates along a quarter million kilometers of fencing it would take to ensure access to good fishing? Do you have any idea how many keys would have to be cut ab initio, and how many would need to be replaced each year? Sorry (to quote standard Canadian usage) sorry, it just ain't happening.
__________________
Hour after hour, day after day, we paddled and sang and slept under the hot sun on the northern ocean, wanting never to return.
  #64  
Old 10-18-2019, 03:05 PM
Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tibby View Post
But, Homeland Security agents are pretty scary.
Yeh, one of them let one of my Princess Nieces and her girlfriends into the USA for a night on the town. Later that evening he turned up at the Gunflint Tavern and tried to pick her up. She and her friends left, but he followed them. As they drove away he ran after them, which was when she made her mistake, for she stopped at a stop sign just as he caught them and climbed in the back seat of the car.

The sprint must have disagreed with his stomach, for he then puked all over the interior of the car, including over my Princess Niece and her friends. They hauled him out of her car, and then had a infinitely long one-and-a-half hour drive home.

Months later, she, her mom and I crossed the border when the same fellow happened to be on duty. As he looked at my Princess Niece, he froze like a deer in the headlights. Then her mother asked, "Is he the one?" He started sputtering and motioned for us to proceed. I gave him a nod, said "It's nice to have met the legend!" and began to pull away as my Princess Niece and her mom shrieked with laughter at him.

So yes, some Homeland Security agents are pretty scary.
__________________
Hour after hour, day after day, we paddled and sang and slept under the hot sun on the northern ocean, wanting never to return.
  #65  
Old 10-18-2019, 03:35 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zyada View Post
Remote location? Have you actually looked at the map that was posted?
Rather than nitpick this minor point, do you have any substantive response to the other things that I and other posters have pointed out?

The question is not how likely these people are to have gone to this place and crossed the border. We know they did go to this place and cross the border. The question is how the fact of their earlier attempted entry and refusal weighs on the relative probabilities of whether this known action was accidental or deliberate. If you really think it's more likely that in these circumstances they just happened to go for a pleasant drive right next to the border carrying a load of US currency and accidentally crossed, may I interest you in purchasing a bridge?
  #66  
Old 10-18-2019, 03:41 PM
Dag Otto is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Las Cruces
Posts: 5,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muffin View Post
(I don't know if it was supposed to be a pet or dinner, but that's neither hare no there).
Look, I'm not saying you have to apologize for that, but it would be the decent thing to do.
  #67  
Old 10-18-2019, 04:03 PM
Machine Elf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Challenger Deep
Posts: 12,347
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
Rather than nitpick this minor point, do you have any substantive response to the other things that I and other posters have pointed out?

The question is not how likely these people are to have gone to this place and crossed the border. We know they did go to this place and cross the border. The question is how the fact of their earlier attempted entry and refusal weighs on the relative probabilities of whether this known action was accidental or deliberate. If you really think it's more likely that in these circumstances they just happened to go for a pleasant drive right next to the border carrying a load of US currency and accidentally crossed, may I interest you in purchasing a bridge?
Probably some local fisherman out for a pleasure cruise. At night. Through eel-infested waters.
  #68  
Old 10-18-2019, 04:39 PM
Brayne Ded is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 468

Trump's second fence


Quote:
Originally Posted by Muffin View Post
Fence? We don' need no stinkin' fence!
...

Do you have any idea how many gates along a quarter million kilometers of fencing it would take to ensure access to good fishing? Do you have any idea how many keys would have to be cut ab initio, and how many would need to be replaced each year? Sorry (to quote standard Canadian usage) sorry, it just ain't happening.
We have different ideas about the fence. I was thinking of something maybe a yard high, just a strand or two of wire, pretty like you find in some fields. In other words, purely symbolic. And pretty little signs at all the roads that go across the border. As in Europe, where you can drive across a border and not know it if you missed the sign (OK, there is often a first sign saying you are approaching the border, but not always).

As for waterways, you just have to use some common sense.

I'm not saying that the US-Canadian border should be patrolled or kept under video surveillance, merely that it should be marked in places where it can, and perhaps should, be marked. If that has not been done already. But the ICE seem to be really hyper about such incursions.
  #69  
Old 10-18-2019, 06:01 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
Rather than nitpick this minor point, do you have any substantive response to the other things that I and other posters have pointed out?

The question is not how likely these people are to have gone to this place and crossed the border. We know they did go to this place and cross the border. The question is how the fact of their earlier attempted entry and refusal weighs on the relative probabilities of whether this known action was accidental or deliberate. If you really think it's more likely that in these circumstances they just happened to go for a pleasant drive right next to the border carrying a load of US currency and accidentally crossed, may I interest you in purchasing a bridge?
The place they crossed is less than a mile from the proper border crossing.

Do we know when it was that they were turned away from entering the US? If I were to speculate, I'd say they went to the border crossing, got turned away, and then went back down the road the other way, which would explain exactly why they were where they were. Obviously, if it were a different day, then that wouldn't explain it, but if they were on their way back from the border checkpoint, then they would have been driving down that very road.

Also, I've checked the links, and I've not seen where they were carrying US currency. They had "dollars" which is also what Canada calls their money. Not really doubting, just looking for a cite to clear that up for sure.
  #70  
Old 10-18-2019, 07:18 PM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
The place they crossed is less than a mile from the proper border crossing.

Do we know when it was that they were turned away from entering the US? If I were to speculate, I'd say they went to the border crossing, got turned away, and then went back down the road the other way, which would explain exactly why they were where they were. Obviously, if it were a different day, then that wouldn't explain it, but if they were on their way back from the border checkpoint, then they would have been driving down that very road.

Also, I've checked the links, and I've not seen where they were carrying US currency. They had "dollars" which is also what Canada calls their money. Not really doubting, just looking for a cite to clear that up for sure.
While it's not certain that it wasn't deliberate I'd say the percentage is pretty high. I would expect someone carrying buckets of money has access to a smart phone and would be navigating using GPS mapping.
  #71  
Old 10-19-2019, 09:34 PM
rbroome is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 3,510
At this point it is academic, but I am curious if our canadian friends can share any information about whether it is true that Canadian immigration refused to let these British nationals back into Canada. After all, they had let them in (at least) once.

Any information on this?
  #72  
Old 10-20-2019, 01:13 AM
RioRico is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 454
Some years back we drove from Canada into the US at a proper crossing... with no customs stop on the US side. Coming back required checking with Canada customs. The adjacent towns were Stewart BC and Hyder AK. Has the situation changed since then?
  #73  
Old 10-20-2019, 01:18 AM
Spoons is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Posts: 18,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbroome View Post
At this point it is academic, but I am curious if our canadian friends can share any information about whether it is true that Canadian immigration refused to let these British nationals back into Canada. After all, they had let them in (at least) once.

Any information on this?
Very little, I'm afraid. The best I can find is from Global News (a Canadian national TV network and reputable news source) and dated October 16 (link here):

Quote:
The agency [that is, US Customs and Border Protection] claims that Canada refused to allow the family to return north of the border, and that two attempts to contact the U.S. consulate were unsuccessful.

The Canadian Border Services Agency declined to comment on the case, citing privacy laws.
Bolding added by me, and I assume that "U.S. consulate" is a typo; it seems to me that it should read, "U.K. consulate." At any rate, it doesn't appear that we'll find out why they were admitted to Canada once, then denied subsequently. Privacy is a serious matter for Canadian government agencies.
  #74  
Old 10-20-2019, 11:50 AM
Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
Some years back we drove from Canada into the US at a proper crossing... with no customs stop on the US side. Coming back required checking with Canada customs. The adjacent towns were Stewart BC and Hyder AK. Has the situation changed since then?
Not changed. Both ends of the only road to anywhere only goes to Canada, so the USCBP does not bother about people driving there from Canada. Folks flying or boating out from Hyder to other places in the USA would eventually have to go through USCBP when they land/dock.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyder_...order_Crossing

The St. Regis peninsula on Akwesasne in Canada is the obverse, for the only two roads that connect the peninsula to the mainland are between Canada and the USA, so Canada does not bother about people driving into Canada there because the only place they can drive to is back out of Canada. People who drive or walk in from the USA and then boat to another place in Canada are required to report to CBSA. It is also Mohawk territory, which could make things a lot more complicated, and yes, smuggling by boat from there to the Canadian mainland exists.
__________________
Hour after hour, day after day, we paddled and sang and slept under the hot sun on the northern ocean, wanting never to return.

Last edited by Muffin; 10-20-2019 at 11:54 AM.
  #75  
Old 10-20-2019, 12:23 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
While it's not certain that it wasn't deliberate I'd say the percentage is pretty high. I would expect someone carrying buckets of money has access to a smart phone and would be navigating using GPS mapping.
And that GPS mapping would put them exactly where they were. If the story is true about a moose or something in the middle of the road, I fail to see how GPS would assist in this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbroome View Post
At this point it is academic, but I am curious if our canadian friends can share any information about whether it is true that Canadian immigration refused to let these British nationals back into Canada. After all, they had let them in (at least) once.

Any information on this?
They were allowed into Canada in the first place, so it does seem odd that they would not be re-admitted. If the reason that they were not re-admitted into Canada is only because of the illegal border crossing, that seems to end up in a circular argument. People are presuming something nefarious about them because of Canada's actions, but if Canada's actions were specifically in response to statements by border patrol, then none of those presumptions carries any weight.

The questions that I have still not seen addressed or answered:

1. Is there any video of the animal that was allegedly blocking the road?

2. Was the money that they were carrying Canadian Dollars, US Dollars, or some combination of the two?

3. Were they denied the opportunity to contact their embassy, and if so, why?

4. Were they really lied to as to the destination of the flight that they were put on, and if so, why?
  #76  
Old 10-20-2019, 02:30 PM
doreen is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Woodhaven,Queens, NY
Posts: 6,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
And that GPS mapping would put them exactly where they were. If the story is true about a moose or something in the middle of the road, I fail to see how GPS would assist in this.







They were allowed into Canada in the first place, so it does seem odd that they would not be re-admitted. If the reason that they were not re-admitted into Canada is only because of the illegal border crossing, that seems to end up in a circular argument. People are presuming something nefarious about them because of Canada's actions, but if Canada's actions were specifically in response to statements by border patrol, then none of those presumptions carries any weight.



The questions that I have still not seen addressed or answered:



1. Is there any video of the animal that was allegedly blocking the road?



2. Was the money that they were carrying Canadian Dollars, US Dollars, or some combination of the two?



3. Were they denied the opportunity to contact their embassy, and if so, why?



4. Were they really lied to as to the destination of the flight that they were put on, and if so, why?


This is supposed to be the surveillance video - I don’t see any animal actually blocking the road, although I suppose the driver could have been startled by a smaller animal. But if that’s the case, I don’t know why they wouldn’t have tried to drive back over the ditch to the correct road.



https://globalnews.ca/video/6042727/...ey-by-accident



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  #77  
Old 10-20-2019, 03:02 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
They were allowed into Canada in the first place, so it does seem odd that they would not be re-admitted.
Not odd at all, if the event raised suspicions and triggered a deeper background check and uncovered facts that made them inadmissible, which I'm pretty sure is just what happened.
  #78  
Old 10-20-2019, 03:56 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Not odd at all, if the event raised suspicions and triggered a deeper background check and uncovered facts that made them inadmissible, which I'm pretty sure is just what happened.
Is there any reason the U.S. agents would not fully inform the Canadians of everything they know about them - which would include the new information of their attempted illegal border crossing? That in itself might make them now inadmissible to Canada.
  #79  
Old 10-20-2019, 04:11 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by doreen View Post
This is supposed to be the surveillance video - I don’t see any animal actually blocking the road, although I suppose the driver could have been startled by a smaller animal. But if that’s the case, I don’t know why they wouldn’t have tried to drive back over the ditch to the correct road.



https://globalnews.ca/video/6042727/...ey-by-accident
The video doesn't really show very far down the road. If there is a moose down the road, it wouldn't show up in that video.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Not odd at all, if the event raised suspicions and triggered a deeper background check and uncovered facts that made them inadmissible, which I'm pretty sure is just what happened.
But what if the event itself is what made them inadmissible? I would think that illegally entering another country would be the sort of thing that would make you inadmissible.
  #80  
Old 10-20-2019, 04:52 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,783
It's disappointing that they drove across a ditch, rather than through a gate. They came so close to creating a scandal that we could have called Gategate. That would have merited honorary admission to a country of their choice, imo.

Last edited by Riemann; 10-20-2019 at 04:53 PM.
  #81  
Old 10-20-2019, 05:07 PM
Esprise Me is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 170
I see a little white thing crossing the road in front of them-- maybe the size of a cat? That linked video has some banners in the way, but the next one up is unobstructed.
  #82  
Old 10-20-2019, 05:25 PM
Nawth Chucka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Whites elevated; UT
Posts: 5,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esprise Me View Post
I see a little white thing crossing the road in front of them-- maybe the size of a cat? That linked video has some banners in the way, but the next one up is unobstructed.
I really doubt the animal story. Why didn't they just come to a stop and wait? Or turn around to avoid it?
  #83  
Old 10-20-2019, 05:27 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
But what if the event itself is what made them inadmissible? I would think that illegally entering another country would be the sort of thing that would make you inadmissible.
Maybe, but remember that they were previously refused entry to the US (earlier that same day, IIRC) allegedly because they didn't have a permanent home address, which is a major red flag to immigration authorities in both the US and Canada. I'm guessing that the Canadian authorities didn't pursue that line of questioning when they were first admitted, but once that was established they were denied re-entry.
  #84  
Old 10-20-2019, 05:44 PM
Aspidistra is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 5,717
If the family are in fact Irish Travellers, this all provides a pretty plausible and not-particularly nefarious (while still not exactly law-abiding) scenario...

US Customs: Can't come in - you don't have a home address
Them: Yeah, no shit we don't have a home address, we're Travellers. This is fuckin' bullshit, man
US Customs: I don't make the rules, get going
Them: *grumble grumble* fuckin' discrimination, got just as much of a right to visit the US as anyone else

*later that day*
Them: Hey, no-one's looking. That's America *right there*. How about if we....?

And then it turns out someone was actually looking after all.

Thing is, I actually do agree that turning someone away just for not having a home address is kind of bullshit. They had enough money to support themselves on their trip. Living in an RV is the kind of thing you're allowed to do. If they cause actual trouble to their host country, you can do exactly the same thing you can do to someone with a home address - stick 'em on the first plane out. There doesn't seem to be anything about not having a home address that ought to matter to Customs apart from "well, it's unusual, and we don't like what's unusual"
__________________
Science created the modern world. Politics is doing its best to destroy it.

Last edited by Aspidistra; 10-20-2019 at 05:44 PM.
  #85  
Old 10-20-2019, 06:08 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspidistra View Post
Thing is, I actually do agree that turning someone away just for not having a home address is kind of bullshit. They had enough money to support themselves on their trip. Living in an RV is the kind of thing you're allowed to do. If they cause actual trouble to their host country, you can do exactly the same thing you can do to someone with a home address - stick 'em on the first plane out. There doesn't seem to be anything about not having a home address that ought to matter to Customs apart from "well, it's unusual, and we don't like what's unusual"
The theory is that if someone doesn't have a permanent home address, they may enter the country and disappear, not intending to ever leave. It's not a line of questioning that's usually pursued unless there is reason for suspicion, but if there is, the person may be asked whether they own a home, whether they have a job, whether they have family back home, and other indicators of ties to their homeland.

Given the purpose and mandate of border control, that does actually make sense, as long as it's not applied blindly and indiscriminately. For instance here is a sweet American couple and their dog who made the conscious decision to sell everything and live in a converted military bus, traveling all over North America, intentionally living a nomadic lifestyle. They were interviewed by the CBC in Nova Scotia and appear to have had no trouble entering Canada, although they were probably asked some pointed questions about their intentions.
  #86  
Old 10-20-2019, 06:29 PM
doreen is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Woodhaven,Queens, NY
Posts: 6,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
The video doesn't really show very far down the road. If there is a moose down the road, it wouldn't show up in that.
I didn’t see anywhere that the family even claimed it was a moose or any other animal actually blocking the road - they supposedly swerved to avoid an unspecified animal in their path. Which doesn’t mean they couldn’t have stopped until the animal crossed the rosd or gotten back on the correct road after getting past it.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  #87  
Old 10-21-2019, 09:18 AM
Disheavel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muffin View Post
So yes, some Homeland Security agents are pretty scary.
I've had an interaction going into British Columbia at a nearby crossing- in which I can say that you are wrong.

My children have non-"matching" last names (in that they don't uphold traditional paternal naming), so we are going through the border, which was not an uncommon thing so we pull forward to line up the back seat and roll down the windows.
Canada ICE: And what is your name?
Offspring (3-4 years old): Darren
Canada ICE: And your last name? <blank look>
Is there another name after Darren? <blank look>
When you get called at school or by your parents? Darren _______ <blank look>
Do you have any other names?
Offspring: My dada sometimes calls me Nipper
Canada ICE: <with hearty chuckle> You guys are all good to go.


Now, my colleague who is a naturalized U.S. ciitzen from Russia was crossing the same border to go camping with friends when he had the following interaction:
Canada ICE: Do you have any weapons?
Colleague: No.... No, but I'm carrying an axe, do I need to declare that?

A three hour interrogation ensued about why the colleague declared that he was carrying a weapon. He was finally allowed to go through but he had to leave his axe behind.

Similarly, when we were carrying bear spray across my partner asked the guard (as he handed back passports), whether we needed to declare it. "If you aren't planning to use it on a person, you shouldn't be declaring it."
So careful what you say!
  #88  
Old 10-21-2019, 10:36 AM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
There are a few more details to this story, at least according to the CBC, that I didn't see mentioned here.

One fact is that two of the adults in this group had previously been denied entry to the US, presumably for good reason.

The other is that US immigration authorities first wanted to just send them back to Canada, but they were denied entry back to Canada by Canadian immigration.

So, while it's true that US immigration can be very heavy-handed at times, this bunch seems like a very suspicious lot, and it sounds like after they're deported they will no longer be welcome in either Canada OR the US again.
Well, that makes a huge difference.

They were still mistreated -- they should have been allowed to contact their embassy, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they WERE held in inhumane conditions. But it's hardly as bad as the initial story sounds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
There is, however, something highly suspicious about a person from country A who's visiting country B and claims to have no plans to go into country C carrying a large amount of cash in country C's currency when they 'accidentally' end up in country C. Carrying a lot of cash in the currency of a country you're supposedly not planning to go to is pretty unusual unless you're somewhere were the local currency is especially shaky and you have a more stable currency (which is not a problem for Canada or the UK). It greatly undermines the claim that one inadvertently crossed the border if one is carrying money that is only readily accepted in the country they supposedly didn't want to enter.

I'm not overly trusting of ICE and border patrol, but if their statements are true (especially the part about Canada refusing to allow them into the country) then the detention is perfectly reasonable.
Actually, that they tried to get into the US in the usual way explains the currency -- which is easy to spend in Canada, by the way, although you get a crummy exchange rate. But when I've been in Canada and fishing around for proper ways to pay, all sorts of people have offered to take US cash. (Once, I'd forgotten to tell my credit card company I was going to Canada -- I actually resolved that issue by calling them from Canada, but I had both a cab driver and a coffee shop offer to take my Us cash. I've also had random Canadians offer to exchange currency at the airport, and friends in Canada offer to exchange my US cash.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Wait, your friend hates Canada now because it has exactly the same rules about inadmissability for a criminal conviction as his own country?
Meh, he hates Canada because Canadian immigration officials made him feel like shit. Most people would react that way. And I don't like our laws about this stuff, either.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Machine Elf View Post
...And then there's the video of their crossing (see at 0:38), which shows that this was not a violent high-speed oh-my-god-look-out-for-the-moose swerve; this was a slow, purposeful, controlled crossing of the shallow ditch between the two roads.
Thank you for that. It looks to me like there's a smudge in the video that could be an animal. But you know, I've been driving in Canada and found my road blocked by animals, and I didn't immediately drive into a ditch at the side of the road. I stopped, and evaluated what I was going to do next. (Then I took photos of the herd of big-horn sheep in front of my car, and then I waited for them to clear out of the way so I could continue. Lousy photos, but still cool.)

They MAINTAINED THEIR FORWARD SPEED and gradually drove into the ditch -- which is pretty obviously a separation between the jurisdictions. As good as that two-strand-of-wire-fence someone was suggesting.

Yeah, no way that was an accident. They were trying to sneak into the US.

Still, weird that Canada wouldn't take them back, and nasty that we separated them and dumped them in prison (yeah, probably some other word is technically correct) without letting them contact their embassy.
  #89  
Old 10-21-2019, 10:58 AM
ASL v2.0's Avatar
ASL v2.0 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Various
Posts: 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by puzzlegal View Post
Still, weird that Canada wouldn't take them back, and nasty that we separated them and dumped them in prison (yeah, probably some other word is technically correct) without letting them contact their embassy.
This is getting bandied about a lot, but I wonder what the actual "rights" are when it comes to embassy notification. Is it a right to contact one's embassy and have a consul present, or is it simply to have one's embassy notified of one's detention and to be told in turn that they have been so informed.

Because it may be that the UK just doesn’t care that much. It may be that they responded with a "noted" and decided they weren’t going to fly someone to Bum-duck, Minnesota (or wherever) just to tell a couple of errant citizens that, yes, in fact they ducked up, they got caught, and now they were going to be rightfully deported back to the UK by a sovereign nation that is nominally on good terms with their own government, and that they would be footed with the bill for everything on the back end.

In short, I look forward to reviewing the government response to their human rights complaint filed in a UK court.

ETA: And just to cut right to the chase and drop the rhetorical games:
https://travel.state.gov/content/tra...ification.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by The US State Department
1. Arrest or Detention of a Foreign National

If a foreign national arrestee is from one of the 56 mandatory countries, notification to the foreign consular officer must be made without delay, even if the foreign national objects. For all other countries, law enforcement must inform the foreign national that they may have their consular officer notified of the arrest or detention and may communicate with them. The foreign national can accept or decline the offer to notify. In all cases, consular notification should be made within 24-72 hours after initial arrest. Law enforcement should document the response and the notification in the event that there are any questions later.
Just because you have a right to have your consulate notified, doesn’t mean your consulate has to give a damn.

Last edited by ASL v2.0; 10-21-2019 at 11:01 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:08 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017