GUWonder

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.

FlyerGoldII

That is what I was implying in my opening post as to what happened to this particular individual - without explicitly stating that in so many words.

König

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.

GUWonder

There is nothing speculative about the increased religious questioning going on as I noted earlier.

84fiero

And we'll never hear the official details or CBP's side of the story because they're usually prevented by privacy provisions from publicly discussing details of specific people/cases.

GUWonder

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.

johnston21

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...

JoeBas

It's probably because they were Muslims. Or dual citizens. Or we're not getting the full story. Or [insert random BS deflection here]. Don't rush to judgement!

TWA884

From the linked article:

JoeBas

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.

jkhuggins

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.

JoeBas

Yup, so why aren't we rounding up and disciplining/firing all the CBP officers who apparently ILLEGALLY let this group in in the past? They endangered our great country!!!

84fiero

Those rascally Canadian church groups, always coming down here to take away our jobs.

GUWonder

Firing long-time federal civil servants isn't so easy unless and until they provide cause or are so eager to accept an appointed position and do so. This is both a good and bad thing for us US cross-border types.

surreycrv

When the rule is to send it ahead of time, that doesn't include emailing it "on the spot" There is ALWAYS a personal responsibility to understand what is involved in crossing international borders. This is far from new. Back in the 80's, id wasn't always asked for to cross a land border. But if asked and you had none, well then you wouldn't be allowed to enter.

It's their job to inspect travelers.