Accidentally my ass.
Wait, your friend hates Canada now because it has exactly the same rules about inadmissability for a criminal conviction as his own country? 
He hates Canadia because someone in a position in the government extended an invitation to him without doing due diligence to see if that invitation could be used.
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.
According to the video at this link, the family had tried to enter the US legally *earlier that same day, but were denied entry because the couldn’t provide any permanent address back in the UK.
There’s no way this was an accidental border crossing.
Sorry to continue this little digression, but that makes even less sense than your friend’s original grudge. Since when does “a Canadian music association” somehow equate to “someone in a position in the government”? And even if the award was from some kind of federal government entity – and “Canadian music association” sure doesn’t sound like any government agency I’ve ever heard of – since when does the granting of an award place an obligation on the granter to do a criminal background check?
The “due diligence” argument is absurd, even if the award was from some kind of government-connected arts agency which I’m pretty sure it was not. The onus of due diligence is always on the traveller – no one else – to ensure that he or she is admissible to the destination country. That some organization “invites” them has no bearing on it whatsoever. Your friend’s grudge is greatly misplaced. If he wasn’t a US citizen, or otherwise legally entitled to US residency, US Immigration wouldn’t have let him back in, either. He’d have been deported to whatever third country he originally came from, just like the Brits in the OP.
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.
I’m gonna side with the more plausible story of ICE asking them to go back to Canada, but Canadian immigration denying them entry. As such ICE taking steps to deport them back to the UK seems reasonable.
Regardless of whether they accidentally entered the US or not, they couldn’t go back to Canada, and there’s no reason to accept them here.
Extended family traveling together w/ a large amount of cash and no home address sounds like Travelers.
If nothing else, if the part of the story is true about them not being told where they were going when getting on the airplane, nor giving them access to the embassy, then that’s a bit damning to ICE, and damages their credibility, IMO.
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?
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.
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.
Oh no, not the Canadian hand sanitizer again!
“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.
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.
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).
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 1842under which many of the border disputes were settled.
Article II
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.
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.
Their story sounds fishy as hell, but their treatment sounds bad too.
Remote location? Have you actually looked at the map that was posted?