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?
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.
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”
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.
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
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!
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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/travel/en/consularnotification.html
Just because you have a right to have your consulate notified, doesn’t mean your consulate has to give a damn.