Border Agents Refused Entry to Canadians Who Wanted to March

By Jeralyn, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Sun Jan 22, 2017 at 09:33:00 AM EST
Tags: immigrants (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The Washington Post reports that U.S. Border Patrol Agents refused entry to Canadians who were coming to the U.S. to join the Women's March:

U.S. border agents asked what they planned to do in the United States. “We said we were going to the Women’s March on Saturday and they said, ‘Well, you’re going to have to pull over,’ ” Dyck told the Guardian. Agents then searched their car and examined their cellphones, according to Dyck. Each member of the group was fingerprinted and had their pictures taken.

Finally, after two hours, the agents told Dyck and his friends to turn around. “They said, ‘You’re headed home today,’ ” Dyck told the Guardian. Officials warned that they’d be arrested if they tried to cross at a different spot this weekend, Dyck said. “And that was it, they didn’t give a lot of justification.”

[More...]

These weren't the only Canadians searched and hassled at the border when disclosing plans to attend the march. The article has more examples.

If this is true, ICE needs to fire these border patrol agents. Since that won't happen, I hope those refused entry contact the ACLU or some other civil liberties group and see if a lawsuit is feasible. This is a systemic problem with Border Control agents.

A 2016 report by an independent task force found the system for disciplining abusive or corrupt Border Patrol agents and officers is so flawed that it hardly acts to deter criminal misconduct. You can read the full draft report here.

< SNL On Trump Inaugural | Kushner Cleared to be Presidential Advisor >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Border Agents Refused Entry to Canadians Who Wanted to March | 35 comments (35 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Crowd size (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by MKS on Sun Jan 22, 2017 at 12:04:16 PM EST

discussion on MTP had close Trump advisor Tom Barrack on to discuss.

I have litigated against Tom Barrack's Colony Capital. Interesting. Our client met directly with Barrack in an attempt to settle.

And Andy Puzder who is the nominee for Labor Secretary. I met him professionally many years ago when he was General Counsel for Fidelity National Title. He was known as being very Pro-Life and politically active.

Because of Mama Bear's injunction, all I can say is I would have selected someone else.

Of course those Canadians were turned back (5.00 / 5) (#3)
by Peter G on Sun Jan 22, 2017 at 02:54:02 PM EST

We can't have foreigners meddling in and trying to influence our political system! Oh, wait ....

at university (none / 0) (#5)
by linea on Sun Jan 22, 2017 at 03:34:12 PM EST

they inform students that "From a legal perspective, foreign nationals have a legal right to attend a rally."

us border agents seem to have unlimited authority to turn back people for any reason. for example, if they suspect someone is planning to hook-up with a boyfriend and may overstay her tourist visa they will refuse entry.

i imagine us border agents would turn back members of the italian communist party from entering the us to participate in the annual seattle may day rally.


I believe Linea is correct, and Jim is not (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Peter G on Sun Jan 22, 2017 at 11:01:06 PM EST

The courts seem to say that the government has power to restrict the liberty of noncitizens (and sometimes even of citizens) at the border that the Constitution would not permit anywhere else. Whether that extends to First Amendment rights, I'm not actually sure; that is, if two Canadians presented themselves at the border Friday, one saying he intended to attend the Inauguration and cheer for the new President, and the other saying she intended to participate in the Women's March, I am actually not sure whether the US CBP could admit one and bar the other. However, inside the U.S., Linea is correct (and Jim, incorrect): noncitizens enjoy the protection of the First Amendment if they wish to join and participate in peaceful demonstrations.


Thanks Peter (none / 0) (#14)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 23, 2017 at 08:40:19 AM EST

that's very interesting. Just curious.

Given that both hacking and demonstrating seeks to influence our elections, why is demonstrating by non citizens legal and hacking/disseminating by non citizens over the Internet illegal?


I can't tell if this is serious (5.00 / 4) (#15)
by Yman on Mon Jan 23, 2017 at 08:53:22 AM EST

Because:

It's the underlying act that determines the legality, not the objective. Bank customers and robbers both want to take money from a bank. Only one, like hacking, is illegal.
These demonstrators were not seeking to influence the election. The election is over.

Hypocrisy accusation fail.


Maybe (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by FlJoe on Mon Jan 23, 2017 at 08:56:31 AM EST

because hacking is actually a crime, marching in the streets is not.


No one can be this ******. (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by Repack Rider on Mon Jan 23, 2017 at 02:01:22 PM EST

Given that both hacking and demonstrating seeks to influence our elections, why is demonstrating by non citizens legal and hacking/disseminating by non citizens over the Internet illegal?

The Constitution guarantees the right to march in the streets. If it makes a distinction between citizens and non-citizens, I missed it. The reference is to "the people," who can obviously be anyone born to human parents, citizen or otherwise.

Federal law prohibits unwarranted interception of private communication, e.g. first Class mail or telephone conversations. It also protects email, as you know from the desperate attempts to read Hillary Clinton's.

Please tell me you understand the difference between First Amendment freedoms and illegal wiretapping. No one could be so yatta-yatta as to fail to understand the distinction.

Right?


Here are some well-researched resources (none / 0) (#32)
by Peter G on Mon Jan 23, 2017 at 08:21:03 PM EST

if you want to know more.
From Duke University.
The most comprehensive relevant Supreme Court decision.


: Thanks! (none / 0) (#35)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 23, 2017 at 10:55:33 PM EST

So "us border agents" (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by Towanda on Mon Jan 23, 2017 at 12:26:55 PM EST

Means that you are a U.S. border agent. Interesting.


No, Towanda, while Linea for reasons unknown (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Peter G on Mon Jan 23, 2017 at 03:23:48 PM EST

eschews punctuation (including capitalization), her English grammar -- unlike that of many young Americans -- is better than that. But a pretty funny comment anyway.


I think she meant (none / 0) (#36)
by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 24, 2017 at 05:19:35 PM EST

U.S. border agents, as in United States, not "we".


Yes, yes, J, of course. And Towanda (none / 0) (#37)
by Peter G on Tue Jan 24, 2017 at 08:00:59 PM EST

knew that. She was continuing her (so far, fruitless) campaign of ragging on Linea for refusing to use conventional punctuation in her comments, and using this as an example of how punctuation can affect meaning. But of course, if you have to explain a joke, you kill it. Which you and I together have now done. So, RIP, that joke anyway. But don't give, up Professor T!


: Oops. Sorry about that (none / 0) (#38)
by Peter G on Tue Jan 24, 2017 at 08:02:14 PM EST

extraneous comma, Prof. T.

linea, perhaps the difference is in (none / 0) (#9)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 22, 2017 at 05:51:12 PM EST

attending vs participating.

As Peter points out we consider it illegal for hackers to hack the DNC and feed WikiLeaks with bad stuff in an attempt to influence.

So then it must be illegal to demonstrate in an attempt.

Yes Peter the irony is just so much. (none / 0) (#8)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 22, 2017 at 05:45:11 PM EST

Of course .. if they were Russians ... (none / 0) (#11)
by Erehwon on Sun Jan 22, 2017 at 09:01:54 PM EST

they would be welcomed, right?


This made me laugh today. (5.00 / 6) (#20)
by Chuck0 on Mon Jan 23, 2017 at 02:41:02 PM EST

"People who go around waving the confederate flag are NOT allowed to tell others 'you lost, get over it'."

The arc of the moral universe is long (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by MKS on Mon Jan 23, 2017 at 02:51:15 PM EST

but it bends to justice. I learned of this MLK quote from Obama. Obama will be missed.

This was supposed to be (none / 0) (#22)
by MKS on Mon Jan 23, 2017 at 02:53:07 PM EST

in Reply to Chuck0's post about the Confederate flag.


When I researched the "arc of justice" (none / 0) (#25)
by Peter G on Mon Jan 23, 2017 at 04:34:01 PM EST

phrase, before using it in a talk I gave last year, I found that MLK was in turn quoting an abolitionist preacher of the 1840s.


: I found the reference (none / 0) (#31)
by Peter G on Mon Jan 23, 2017 at 08:09:53 PM EST

A discussion on a site called "Quote Investigator." Fascinating.

this should be in an open thread (none / 0) (#2)
by Jeralyn on Sun Jan 22, 2017 at 12:44:34 PM EST

Did these incidents happen (none / 0) (#4)
by caseyOR on Sun Jan 22, 2017 at 03:24:29 PM EST

at all Canadian-U.S. border crossings or one particular crossing?

If it happened at the one crossing rogue Border Control agents seem the likely culprits. If it occurred at more than one crossing, then an order from the T***p administration is probably the cause.

So I just found out (none / 0) (#6)
by CST on Sun Jan 22, 2017 at 03:58:59 PM EST

That a good family friend of ours is banned from Canada because he tried to participate in a protest there. Well, maybe not officially banned but he has been unable to cross the border ever since.

This came up about a week ago and I just thought it was a strange coincidence.

Champlain Border crossing (none / 0) (#7)
by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 22, 2017 at 04:59:45 PM EST

I used to cross there while attending college at SUNY PLattsburgh. I never encountered any difficulty (one time, after a Frank Zappa concert in Montreal, they couldn't wake me up on the way back, and the Border Patrol let us through anyway)

But I knew friends that had been pulled out of the line, and had their car taken apart, made to wait hours while it was searched.

They have a lot of discretion

Since we've already heard (none / 0) (#10)
by fishcamp on Sun Jan 22, 2017 at 08:31:51 PM EST

our new leader had mandates in place to begin dismantling the ACA upon his taking the oath, he obviously, to me, had a similar mandate ready to stop any foreign marchers from entering the U S. Thus it begins.

: Who knows if he prepared these (none / 0) (#13)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 23, 2017 at 07:29:53 AM EST

John Dean's latest writing says Trump is an empty vessel. He only desires power and prestige. Dean outs the family that has selected the cabinet, he basically spells out who is calling the shots. Trump is just the willing front man who is PRESIDENT!

Meanwhile (none / 0) (#17)
by FlJoe on Mon Jan 23, 2017 at 09:40:14 AM EST

on the Russian front

United States counterintelligence officials have investigated Donald Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn's communications with Russia, the Wall Street Journal reported Sunday night, citing "people familiar with the matter."

Trumpkins: (none / 0) (#26)
by KeysDan on Mon Jan 23, 2017 at 06:06:48 PM EST

Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, to the press: "Our intention is to never lie." "We may disagree about the facts."

Secretary of Education nominee, Betsy DeVos. "Honored to witness the historical inauguration and swearing-in ceremony for the 45th president of the US."

Thank you jondee and as a reward for you, here is (none / 0) (#27)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 23, 2017 at 07:13:26 PM EST

my answer to Yman. But please consider it yours as well.

Yman, the context of my comment/question was that the thread is about the persons being stopped from entering at the border for announcing they will commit what the government sees as a crime. Demonstrating and thus seeking to influence our elections/representatives/citizens. We have elections regularly. The next national elections are in '18. There will be various state and local elections before then along with some special elections. To use your analogy, if the bank robber announced he was going to rob the bank it would be expected that the guard would stop him from entering.

Peter noted that the courts seem to give border security a looser rein than internal.

A casual perusal of the Internet using Google show a wide range of "Rights" enjoyed by all. It also points out that there also things,e.g., voting, office holding, that are definitely denied with others in somewhat of a grey zone. e.g. Gun ownership appears to one of those.

My question to Peter was a hopeful one that he would take some time and explain the finer points.

Hacking is illegal by all. Participation in demonstrations are legal by all. The devil is in the intent.

There is no devil (none / 0) (#28)
by Yman on Mon Jan 23, 2017 at 07:17:55 PM EST

Just a silly, false analogy in a failed attempt to claim hypocrisy.

Next.


Thank you, Yman, (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Erehwon on Mon Jan 23, 2017 at 07:29:40 PM EST

for your yeoman service.

I'm going to steal this for future use: "Just a silly, false analogy in a failed attempt."


: I think (none / 0) (#30)
by FlJoe on Mon Jan 23, 2017 at 07:57:47 PM EST

tortured analogy is more to the point, waterboarding logic on a daily basis.