Canadian Citizens Denied Entry to the US [merged threads]
#31
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
It will be interesting to see if US persons hit this way end up trying to get this moved into the court systems as a form of the federal government violating the Constitution -- establishment clause of the Constitution/the First Amendment -- and constitutional rights.
Federal employees willfully violating the constitutional rights of Americans may be a felony. Something CBP employees should consider, whether or not DHS and DOJ currently try to excuse/justify/ignore this kind of behavior.
#32
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Programs: Aeroplan SE AND 1MM, HHonors Gold, Marriott Bonvoy Platinum , L'Accor Platinum
Posts: 9,580
There seem to be a lot more "religion" questions being asked. It used to be that this kind of stuff was somewhat more targeted, more a land crossing than airport of entry thing, and tied to specific events. Now it seems to be more broadly a more open hunting season on people perceived (rightfully or wrongfully) to be Muslim or "brown" (or both).
It will be interesting to see if US persons hit this way end up trying to get this moved into the court systems as a form of the federal government violating the Constitution -- establishment clause of the Constitution/the First Amendment -- and constitutional rights.
Federal employees willfully violating the constitutional rights of Americans may be a felony. Something CBP employees should consider, whether or not DHS and DOJ currently try to excuse/justify/ignore this kind of behavior.
It will be interesting to see if US persons hit this way end up trying to get this moved into the court systems as a form of the federal government violating the Constitution -- establishment clause of the Constitution/the First Amendment -- and constitutional rights.
Federal employees willfully violating the constitutional rights of Americans may be a felony. Something CBP employees should consider, whether or not DHS and DOJ currently try to excuse/justify/ignore this kind of behavior.
#33
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: PDX
Posts: 908
I am not trying to defend the CBP in any way, shape or form, but... do we know the specifics of this case or is it just pure speculation at this point? From reading the article, I did not understand why exactly she was refused entry. The article mentioned that she had some "problem" at the border recently, but nothing more than that. As far as I know, one officer cannot arbitrarily refuse entry to a visitor -- a higher level supervisor should be involved. Yes, I realize it can be about the color of someone's skin (and it is shameful), but there should still be an official reason for refusal. Until we know that reason, IMHO it's too early to cry foul.
#34
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
I am not trying to defend the CBP in any way, shape or form, but... do we know the specifics of this case or is it just pure speculation at this point? From reading the article, I did not understand why exactly she was refused entry. The article mentioned that she had some "problem" at the border recently, but nothing more than that. As far as I know, one officer cannot arbitrarily refuse entry to a visitor -- a higher level supervisor should be involved. Yes, I realize it can be about the color of someone's skin (and it is shameful), but there should still be an official reason for refusal. Until we know that reason, IMHO it's too early to cry foul.
#35
Join Date: May 2009
Location: South Park, CO
Programs: Tegridy Elite
Posts: 5,678
I am not trying to defend the CBP in any way, shape or form, but... do we know the specifics of this case or is it just pure speculation at this point? From reading the article, I did not understand why exactly she was refused entry. The article mentioned that she had some "problem" at the border recently, but nothing more than that. As far as I know, one officer cannot arbitrarily refuse entry to a visitor -- a higher level supervisor should be involved. Yes, I realize it can be about the color of someone's skin (and it is shameful), but there should still be an official reason for refusal. Until we know that reason, IMHO it's too early to cry foul.
#36
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Are you saying that the CBP will never be hacked or otherwise compromised (even by itself)? Come on, we know the CBP isn't infallible.
#37
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 223
Canadian Church Volunteers Denied Entry
Hamilton church volunteers denied entry to U.S. so they wouldn't 'steal American jobs'
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilt...jobs-1.4022969
Keep the rhythm going...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilt...jobs-1.4022969
Keep the rhythm going...
#39
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: oneword Emerald
Posts: 20,639
U.S. border law says Canadians do not require a visa to enter the country for volunteer work, as long as they can provide proof that their work will not be compensated.
Hoeksema says the group was told they had failed to have a letter sent from the host church "paroling" them into the country.
"So what ends up happening is the organization that you're going to work with sends a letter to border patrol saying this is what they're going to be doing. What our group did not do, is we did not send that ahead of time," he admitted.
Hoeksema says the group was told they had failed to have a letter sent from the host church "paroling" them into the country.
"So what ends up happening is the organization that you're going to work with sends a letter to border patrol saying this is what they're going to be doing. What our group did not do, is we did not send that ahead of time," he admitted.
#40
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,789
So because they had the letter sent on the spot instead of sending it in advance, no tickie no shirtie.
Besides which, the reason given of "taking construction jobs from Americans" has no material effect on whether or not this letter was pre-approved.
It sure seems to most outsiders that what used to be true no longer is - CBP is now actively looking for any excuse to bounce people rather than using any modicum of discretion.
Besides which, the reason given of "taking construction jobs from Americans" has no material effect on whether or not this letter was pre-approved.
It sure seems to most outsiders that what used to be true no longer is - CBP is now actively looking for any excuse to bounce people rather than using any modicum of discretion.
#41
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
Suppose a CBP officer exercises their discretion and admits someone who is technically in violation of the law. If the admittee spends their time in the US without incident, no-one will notice, and the officer will not be rewarded for their use of discretion. On the other hand, if the admittee subsequently causes a problem, the CBP officer will be blamed for their use of discretion, and will probably hung out to dry by their superiors.
There's plenty of disincentive to grant exceptions to the rules, and plenty of incentive to monolithically follow the rules.
#44
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Hardly a surprise.
Suppose a CBP officer exercises their discretion and admits someone who is technically in violation of the law. If the admittee spends their time in the US without incident, no-one will notice, and the officer will not be rewarded for their use of discretion. On the other hand, if the admittee subsequently causes a problem, the CBP officer will be blamed for their use of discretion, and will probably hung out to dry by their superiors.
There's plenty of disincentive to grant exceptions to the rules, and plenty of incentive to monolithically follow the rules.
Suppose a CBP officer exercises their discretion and admits someone who is technically in violation of the law. If the admittee spends their time in the US without incident, no-one will notice, and the officer will not be rewarded for their use of discretion. On the other hand, if the admittee subsequently causes a problem, the CBP officer will be blamed for their use of discretion, and will probably hung out to dry by their superiors.
There's plenty of disincentive to grant exceptions to the rules, and plenty of incentive to monolithically follow the rules.
#45
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Surrey, BC
Programs: A few, *G,
Posts: 124
So because they had the letter sent on the spot instead of sending it in advance, no tickie no shirtie.
Besides which, the reason given of "taking construction jobs from Americans" has no material effect on whether or not this letter was pre-approved.
It sure seems to most outsiders that what used to be true no longer is - CBP is now actively looking for any excuse to bounce people rather than using any modicum of discretion.
Besides which, the reason given of "taking construction jobs from Americans" has no material effect on whether or not this letter was pre-approved.
It sure seems to most outsiders that what used to be true no longer is - CBP is now actively looking for any excuse to bounce people rather than using any modicum of discretion.
It's their job to inspect travelers.