British holidaymakers 'traumatised' after arrest at US border

[bv3]

I was thinking the same thing.

There was no animal.

This is part of a coordinated invasion of our sovereign nation.

These people are invaders.

There may be some Ron Paul types out there who would ask why there's a road there in the first place that crosses the US-Canada border without any wall or official border crossing point that everyone on that road would be forced to stop at, and why in the absence of something like that people simply driving down that road would be arrested without having violated any apparent laws that they would have any way of knowing about. But that is shear victim blaming. These people are invaders, and we're all victims of their crime.

Would you be cherry picking the unfortunate treatment of holiday makers to vindicate a massive, and massively irresponsible, incentivized, migration of millions of impoverished people a year--into a country that is already 22 trillion dollars in debt, on the verge of a deep recession (if not something worse), and is beginning to exhibit signs of serious ethnic stress?

Would you do that?

Why?

[Swordsmyth]

Canada didn't want them back and neither did the UK.............................

[TheCount]

I sure am glad that the government spent the money to ship them all from Washington to Pennsylvania and"detain" them there.

[Superfluous Man]

I imagine what side George Soros is on, and I take the opposite side.

Right. That's why you were part of Occupy Wall Street I'm sure.

[Superfluous Man]

Would you be cherry picking the unfortunate treatment of holiday makers to vindicate a massive, and massively irresponsible, incentivized, migration of millions of impoverished people a year--into a country that is already 22 trillion dollars in debt, on the verge of a deep recession (if not something worse), and is beginning to exhibit signs of serious ethnic stress?

Would you do that?

Why?

So you think that arresting people who illegally cross the border is unfortunate treatment of them?

From the rest of your post it's hard to tell if you really think that.

Or is it only unfortunate when they are "holiday makers" and not "impoverished people"?

[bv3]

So you think that arresting people who illegally cross the border is unfortunate treatment of them?

From the rest of your post it's hard to tell if you really think that.

Or is it only unfortunate when they are "holiday makers" and not "impoverished people"?

We can get to your questions, but its a courtesy I will only return.

[Superfluous Man]

We can get to your questions, but its a courtesy I will only return.

Your questions are hard to answer inasmuch as they are loaded and make little sense. But I will try.

I don't need to say anything about holiday makers in order to vindicate the migration of anyone else into this country who wants to come here. Immigration to America (both legal and illegal) needs no vindication, since there's nothing wrong with it. The national debt is entirely irrelevant, except to make the additional point about how illegal immigrants in particular help to ameliorate it by paying into SS and Medicare funds without the liability of having to pay it out to them in the future. Threat of recession is also not relevant, except inasmuch as the influx of cheap labor that the immigration you refer to will help stave it off.

Ethnic stress though. Now I think there you bring up what is for most redhats the real issue. But that also has nothing to do with vindicating something that is plainly not in any way unjust. If some injustice comes about through the motivation of ethnic stress, then the guilt for that belongs to those individuals who commit the injustice. Any vindication of them would be open to question. But mere presence of Latin Americans (or other ethnic groups belonging to the impoverished people you mentioned) in the USA is not an injustice on anyone's part to be vindicated. And those who feel some kind of ethnic stress because those Latin Americans (or members of other groups) live in the USA bear the responsibility for that stress. They should learn not to be troubled by things that are none of their business.

[Cleaner44]

I'm just curious to know how big this f'king animal must have been to require a detour.

That is what I am wondering. So there was an animal in the road that they had to "swerve" to avoid, says the media. Apparently there was a side road right there that they were able to swerve onto luckily. Once they avoided the squirrel/moose they just right on trucking on the wrong direction until they entered a foreign country accidentally.

This doesn't sound at all fishy. All of the articles I find don't seem at all like liberal propaganda.

[Brian4Liberty]

That is what I am wondering. So there was an animal in the road that they had to "swerve" to avoid, says the media. Apparently there was a side road right there that they were able to swerve onto luckily. Once they avoided the squirrel/moose they just right on trucking on the wrong direction until they entered a foreign country accidentally.

This doesn't sound at all fishy. All of the articles I find don't seem at all like liberal propaganda.

The story changes depending upon which media report you read. This story says it was a median strip and drainage ditch they drove across to get to the US. There is no border indicator or fence at all there though. Who knows what to make of the dirt road story.

Go to the link to see a Google street view if the border.

https://globalnews.ca/news/6035317/u...ear-vancouver/

According to a statement from a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) spokesperson, the family was actually arrested on Oct. 2 around 9 p.m., after being spotted on video surveillance on Zero Avenue.

“The vehicle then turned south and entered the U.S. illegally, by slowly and deliberately driving through a ditch onto Boundary Road in Lynden, Washington,” reads the statement.

“The vehicle traveled west on Boundary Road continuing on the United States’ side, and was pulled over by a Border Patrol agent a short time later.”

The CBP says a records check found that two of the adults in the vehicle had been previously denied travel authorization to the U.S.

[axiomata]

That is what I am wondering. So there was an animal in the road that they had to "swerve" to avoid, says the media. Apparently there was a side road right there that they were able to swerve onto luckily. Once they avoided the squirrel/moose they just right on trucking on the wrong direction until they entered a foreign country accidentally.

This doesn't sound at all fishy. All of the articles I find don't seem at all like liberal propaganda.

There is no road across the border here. There are two paralllel roads on each side of the border with a drainage ditch between. There's cameras watching the border.

Its entirely possible that an animal in the road forced a driver to swerve into the ditch. But the cehicle most likely would get stuck, and video would show what happened.

[Superfluous Man]

There is no road across the border here. There are two paralllel roads on each side of the border with a drainage ditch between. There's cameras watching the border.

Its entirely possible that an animal in the road forced a driver to swerve into the ditch. But the cehicle most likely would get stuck, and video would show what happened.

Interesting. That does fill in some important details that ought to have been in the article.

[Brian4Liberty]

Canada didn't want them back and neither did the UK.............................

Yeah, if that one media report is correct, Canada refused to take them back across the border. That is what left them in limbo.

[Cleaner44]

Yeah, if that one media report is correct, Canada refused to take them back across the border. That is what left them in limbo.

That is always the sign of quality journalism, when it leaves you with more questions than answers...

[Zippyjuan]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50067575

Jailed British tourists entered US 'deliberately'

A British family detained in the US after crossing the border from Canada intentionally entered the country illegally, officials have said.

They said the vehicle was captured on video "slowly and deliberately" driving through a ditch to enter the US.

Two adults in the vehicle had previously been denied travel authorisation to the US, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) said.

One couple involved claimed the group had crossed the border accidentally.

David Connors, 30, and his wife Eileen, 24, said they were travelling with their young baby and family members - two more adults and young twins - on 3 October when, to avoid an animal, they veered on to a small road.

But CBP said that remote video surveillance captured the vehicle crossing a ditch before pulling back on to a road in Lynden, Washington state, and continuing west. The group was pulled over by a border patrol agent shortly after.

The occupants were arrested for illegally entering the US without inspection. During processing, records revealed the two adults that had previously been denied access to the US, CBP said on Tuesday.

More at link.

[Swordsmyth]

But now, as more details emerge, things are looking increasingly strange. We’re still not sure what the entire story is, but the Connors are clearly more than they first appeared. For starters, they didn’t “accidentally take a wrong turn.” They were caught on video intentionally driving across a grassy strip between two roads, one on the Canadian side and one in the U.S. And things only got stranger from there. (WaPo)

The idea that somebody “swerved to avoid an animal” and wound up in the wrong country was a bit of a stretch to begin with. But as I mentioned above, the story quickly grew even more complicated.
It turns out that the Connors had applied for a travel visa to come to the United States last year but they were denied. The reason for the denial wasn’t provided, but there must have been some disqualifying factor. Generally, applications to visit from Great Britain are approved almost automatically because of our close relationship with them.
Also, taking them to detention was not CBP’s first attempted solution. They initially tried to return them to Canada where they presumably belonged. (In fact, that what the Connors requested.) But the Canadians wouldn’t allow them back in the country. (Again, no reason for the denial was offered.) Next, CPB tried to contact the British embassy to see about sending them home. Their call was not returned.
The next odd detail is that the Connors were found to have $16,000 in cash in their vehicle. That’s not technically illegal if they declared the money when entering the country and people are entitled to spend money on vacation, but that’s one heck of a lot of cash to have in the trunk. You’d think they would be using plastic or at least traveler’s checks.
Finally, CBP threw up their hands and put them in detention while beginning the steps to process them for deportation to England. What else were they supposed to do?
But seriously… what the heck is going on here? The family tried to get a visa but were denied and then they’re found sneaking over the border with a car full of cash. There’s obviously more to this story than meets the eye. And it’s certainly not a case of CBP cruelly mistreating a family as it was originally advertised.

More at: https://hotair.com/archives/jazz-sha...obably-seemed/

[dannno]

Right. That's why you were part of Occupy Wall Street I'm sure.

I was there to emphasize the End the Fed aspect, similar to why Peter Schiff was there.

[bv3]

Your questions are hard to answer inasmuch as they are loaded and make little sense. But I will try.

I don't need to say anything about holiday makers in order to vindicate the migration of anyone else into this country who wants to come here. Immigration to America (both legal and illegal) needs no vindication, since there's nothing wrong with it. The national debt is entirely irrelevant, except to make the additional point about how illegal immigrants in particular help to ameliorate it by paying into SS and Medicare funds without the liability of having to pay it out to them in the future. Threat of recession is also not relevant, except inasmuch as the influx of cheap labor that the immigration you refer to will help stave it off.

Ethnic stress though. Now I think there you bring up what is for most redhats the real issue. But that also has nothing to do with vindicating something that is plainly not in any way unjust. If some injustice comes about through the motivation of ethnic stress, then the guilt for that belongs to those individuals who commit the injustice. Any vindication of them would be open to question. But mere presence of Latin Americans (or other ethnic groups belonging to the impoverished people you mentioned) in the USA is not an injustice on anyone's part to be vindicated. And those who feel some kind of ethnic stress because those Latin Americans (or members of other groups) live in the USA bear the responsibility for that stress. They should learn not to be troubled by things that are none of their business.

Your questions are hard to answer inasmuch as they are loaded and make little sense. But I will try.

I don't need to say anything about holiday makers in order to vindicate the migration of anyone else into this country who wants to come here. Immigration to America (both legal and illegal) needs no vindication, since there's nothing wrong with it. The national debt is entirely irrelevant, except to make the additional point about how illegal immigrants in particular help to ameliorate it by paying into SS and Medicare funds without the liability of having to pay it out to them in the future. Threat of recession is also not relevant, except inasmuch as the influx of cheap labor that the immigration you refer to will help stave it off.

Ethnic stress though. Now I think there you bring up what is for most redhats the real issue. But that also has nothing to do with vindicating something that is plainly not in any way unjust. If some injustice comes about through the motivation of ethnic stress, then the guilt for that belongs to those individuals who commit the injustice. Any vindication of them would be open to question. But mere presence of Latin Americans (or other ethnic groups belonging to the impoverished people you mentioned) in the USA is not an injustice on anyone's part to be vindicated. And those who feel some kind of ethnic stress because those Latin Americans (or members of other groups) live in the USA bear the responsibility for that stress. They should learn not to be troubled by things that are none of their business.

The national debt isn't irrelevant when the trend, and imminent fait accompli, are vastly expanded and publicly funded social rights. Those who have a little have most to lose (the middle class), as the truly wealthy, have been, and will continue to be adept at protecting their assets (money has that insular quality in large enough quantities, doesn't it). You present this current movement of peoples as an organic event; I call that being disingenuous--if it were organic the magnitude of the numbers involved wouldn't be so great and, instead, would be sustainable.

You make this claim that more people somehow means more money being paid into so-called social programs, if that were the case and immigration has been growing exponentially for the past few decades--when will those contributions to the debt manifest? Don't tell me over the next five years. Or, without this enormous movement of people would the debt be much higher than it currently is?

You are right to say there is nothing wrong with migration. That is duh level truism. However, you use conflate authentic and spontaneous migration with artificial, incentivized, and reckless migration--the kind that sees people perish in the desert, and sell their kids to traffickers, that kind of thing. I suppose free medical care and the free education of offspring doesn't factor into your evaluation of liabilities, nor too the resources spent therein and thus denied the extant population.

Ethnic stress is certainly to be considered, particularly when the new population makes no secret of their contempt for the existing population. I'm not talking about the workers, rather about the people in the universities that will go on to secure positions of leadership. Again, we are not talking about 'mere presence' we are talking about an artificially created mass movement of people to a place that is already on the cusp of a (God willing) minor collapse.

You may want to pretend that one million or more new arrivals per year has no negative effect on the indigenous population--but you do just that, pretend. If Ron Paul had taken office in 08 or 12, your contention would be plausible because the movement of people would be spontaneous and naturally kept within quantities that are not inimical to the host population's well-being.

"The guilt for that belongs to the individuals who commit the injustice." The individuals responsible for this injustice hold the levers of power, and firmly. In a strictly moral sense, however, you would be correct. Too bad morality has long since lost the force of law. As to your last quip, though already addressed, you are essentially saying: "Those people who are actually contributing to the welfare state have no business being concerned with the function of that state." I know, I know, poor indigenous people--the tired refrain goes--don't actually contribute to the welfare state blah blah blah, yet they are on the hook for the debt as much as I--and presumably you--to say nothing of their offspring.

I suppose the policy makers that instituted the so-called war on drugs (read blacks) were not culpable morally, I suppose the media that propagandized the rest of the population to accepting it equally dodge the blame, just the paid hands content to earn a living by waging the war and committed the injustice are to blame... and hammers drive nails, not the hands that wield them.

[Anti Federalist]

They should learn not to be troubled by things that are none of their business.

My home turning into New Kinshasa or New Tegucigalpa and being filled with people who despise me and have been taught that everything that is wrong in their lives is my fault and my stuff should be taken from me, and maybe my life should be taken from me because of it...IS GODDAMN $#@!ING WELL "MY BUSINESS".

Go jump off your own damn cliff...

[AngryCanadian]

During the 2008 and 2012 campaigns, one of the main themes of this website was railing against examples like this of the loss of freedom and growth of the police state this nation underwent after 9/11.

Today the new anti-libertarian majority here cheers this kind of thing on.

Today the new anti-libertarian majority here cheers this kind of thing on.

Would the so called libertarians cheer on for open borders as well? just a thought.

[Superfluous Man]

You present this current movement of peoples as an organic event; I call that being disingenuous--if it were organic the magnitude of the numbers involved wouldn't be so great and, instead, would be sustainable.

Several billion people in the USA would be easily sustainable. But you are right that when it's not sustainable, the laws of supply and demand will be enough to put a stop to it without central planners making those decisions for us.

[Superfluous Man]

My home turning into New Kinshasa or New Tegucigalpa and being filled with people who despise me and have been taught that everything that is wrong in their lives is my fault and my stuff should be taken from me, and maybe my life should be taken from me because of it...IS GODDAMN $#@!ING WELL "MY BUSINESS".

Go jump off your own damn cliff...

The criteria you're using will make you a sovereign ruler over all of us, since there will always be the possibility that other people minding their own business and doing nothing to harm you will do things that indirectly change the world around you in such a way that lays the groundwork for future crimes to be committed against you by yet other people.

This kind of reasoning doesn't work. And if you really accept it as reasonable, you no longer have any grounds to rail against the police state or communism because your own trump card will work just as well for everything they want to do to rule over you as it does for the ways you want to rule over the rest of us.

[Superfluous Man]

Would the so called libertarians cheer on for open borders as well? just a thought.

Did you just now figure this out?

[specsaregood]

My home turning into New Kinshasa or New Tegucigalpa and being filled with people who despise me and have been taught that everything that is wrong in their lives is my fault and my stuff should be taken from me, and maybe my life should be taken from me because of it...IS GODDAMN $#@!ING WELL "MY BUSINESS".

Go jump off your own damn cliff...

white man bad.

[bv3]

Several billion people in the USA would be easily sustainable. But you are right that when it's not sustainable, the laws of supply and demand will be enough to put a stop to it without central planners making those decisions for us.

Several billion people in the US alone would be CATASTROPHIC. Unless, of course, some kind of super clean, instantly renewable, and efficient energy source is discovered. Under the ascendant social rights rulers several billion people in the USA would be equally catastrophic from an economic point of view.

[bv3]

The criteria you're using will make you a sovereign ruler over all of us, since there will always be the possibility that other people minding their own business and doing nothing to harm you will do things that indirectly change the world around you in such a way that lays the groundwork for future crimes to be committed against you by yet other people.

This kind of reasoning doesn't work. And if you really accept it as reasonable, you no longer have any grounds to rail against the police state or communism because your own trump card will work just as well for everything they want to do to rule over you as it does for the ways you want to rule over the rest of us.

You have to take circumstances as they are, not as they would be in the ideal decentralized world. As things are AF is correct, and you would prefer he just pipe down? Voting for massively expanded government administrated social programs is not indirect, voting to curtail what tatters of liberty remain is not indirect, taking from a pot filled with the labor of others (as in social security) is not indirect. Wanting to maintain ones own liberty does not equal, and cannot equal, an argument for communism or the police state. Insisting that one doing so pipe down because of your own misapprehension, however... Is anyone telling you not to hire a migrant, marry one? I have not seen that. I would suggest that you start treating them with the respect due human beings and not as living tools through which to prove your adherence to dogma.

As it is: We live in a country that has its fate decided by democratic processes. The enormous influx of people into a country already on the ropes, and in which they are unlikely to thrive solely on account of their own effort, has created a large and growing group that makes no secret about its plans to use those democratic processes to advance their own interests at the expense of the interest of the extant population--and that means everyone (though I know it suits the party line to break white from brown). This is the key point: This massive movement of people isn't spontaneous--it is an artificial event with a clear goal that may succinctly be described as denuding the political power of an existing population. How positively 18th century.

[bv3]

Did you just now figure this out?

Libertarians are typically against aggressive policies though?

[RJB]

If several billion sounds like a great society, why do they come here and people like Superfluous don't go there?

[axiomata]

Video of car driving across the ditch is available on the internets now.

[nobody's_hero]

Video of car driving across the ditch is available on the internets now.

[Swordsmyth]

The criteria you're using will make you a sovereign ruler over all of us, since there will always be the possibility that other people minding their own business and doing nothing to harm you will do things that indirectly change the world around you in such a way that lays the groundwork for future crimes to be committed against you by yet other people.

This kind of reasoning doesn't work. And if you really accept it as reasonable, you no longer have any grounds to rail against the police state or communism because your own trump card will work just as well for everything they want to do to rule over you as it does for the ways you want to rule over the rest of us.

Nonsense, the criteria YOU are using will destroy liberty all over the world by reducing the whole world to the lowest common denominator.

The nation has a right to make a group decision on who and how many to allow in to the national territory to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.