7 ms·

Is this the visitor's own take on what happened? Or did they tell him "you're denied entry because of your JD Vance meme"? Per the article they also asked him a

Is this the visitor's own take on what happened? Or did they tell him "you're denied entry because of your JD Vance meme"? Per the article they also asked him a bunch of other things like about right wing terrorism. Maybe his answers sucked? Maybe he was being evasive? There was the case a few months ago of a Canadian lady being detained and denied entry "for no reason", and then it turned out she wanted to work in the US while on a tourist visa, and also was attempting to evade border patrol by flying to Mexico and entering via the southern border instead of the northern border or at an airport, where she had previously been denied admittance.

marcusverus 1y ago
[flagged]
throwawayq3423 1y ago
So how many times does something like this need to happen before you accept that it's happening?
- ryandrake 1y ago
  [flagged]
- IncreasePosts 1y ago
  Exactly once. But, I would need to know what actually happened, as opposed to what a person thinks or reports having happened. To share an anecdote, a person I knew in high school went around telling people that he got tasered for having a broken tail light on his car. Well, he did have a broken tail light, and he was tasered, but when the body cam footage came out, it tells the story of kid getting pulled over, being extremely combative with the initially polite officer, refusing to provide identification, refusing to exit the vehicle 10 times when the officer was attempting to lawfully arrest him, and then being tasered.
  - throwawayq3423 1y ago
    So what circumstances are needed for you to believe something actually happened, besides several examples of the exact same behavior from the administration ?
    - account42 1y ago
      One example where you don't find out that yes there was actually more to the story would be a start. This isn't such an example: CPD says he admitted to previously using drugs in the US which is a federal crime.
      - throwawayq3423 1y ago
        The multiple examples of legal residents being detained for their Pro-palestinian activism? So the Norwegian's account can't be trusted but the CPD's can? Why? Also most drugs are not federal crimes and it sounds like he wasn't arrested for it, so there's no record and therefore no reason to prevent lawful entry.
        IncreasePosts 1y ago
        Let's ask the Norwegian if there was in fact a picture of his drug paraphernalia on his phone. That should help us resolve the issue. If there was that picture, it would be totally weird that he only mentioned his JD Vance meme and not the drug picture
        throwawayq3423 1y ago
        Again photos of illicit materials on your phone is not grounds for refusal of entry into a country. There is no law for that.
        IncreasePosts 1y ago
        The law for entry to a country is not "you're allowed in so long as there is now law specifically making what you did illegal in the country"
hermanzegerman 1y ago
[flagged]
- IncreasePosts 1y ago
  Has the professor shared what their messages actually were? This is the same exact issue that this thread is about - it's impossible to judge this without any kind of detail except the outcome. The messages were described by the source in your article “reflect[ing] hatred toward Trump and can be described as terrorism”, and “hateful and conspiratorial messages”. Maybe they were? Who knows?
tensor 1y ago
You mean the Canadian who went to the southern border to "get a new work permit" after securing a new job? Yeah, real sketchy that, applying for a work permit to work in the country.
- IncreasePosts 1y ago
  You secure your work permit at a consular office in Canada, you don't try to enter the US on one type of visa with the intent to convert it to a work visa once you're in. That's called preconceived intent and is against the rules.
  - tensor 1y ago
    She was not on a visa. Believe it or not Canadians can travel to the US without a visa. She also had a lawyer who advised going to the border. It was all 100% legal and standard practice.
    - account42 1y ago
      Trying to enter via the Mexican border after being denied entry at the Canadian border and not first resolving that with the Embassy is very far from standard practice and if her lawyer actually recommended that she should seek a better one.

marcusverus 1y ago

[flagged]

throwawayq3423 1y ago

So how many times does something like this need to happen before you accept that it's happening?

ryandrake 1y ago
[flagged]
IncreasePosts 1y ago
Exactly once. But, I would need to know what actually happened, as opposed to what a person thinks or reports having happened. To share an anecdote, a person I knew in high school went around telling people that he got tasered for having a broken tail light on his car. Well, he did have a broken tail light, and he was tasered, but when the body cam footage came out, it tells the story of kid getting pulled over, being extremely combative with the initially polite officer, refusing to provide identification, refusing to exit the vehicle 10 times when the officer was attempting to lawfully arrest him, and then being tasered.
- throwawayq3423 1y ago
  So what circumstances are needed for you to believe something actually happened, besides several examples of the exact same behavior from the administration ?
  - account42 1y ago
    One example where you don't find out that yes there was actually more to the story would be a start. This isn't such an example: CPD says he admitted to previously using drugs in the US which is a federal crime.
    - throwawayq3423 1y ago
      The multiple examples of legal residents being detained for their Pro-palestinian activism? So the Norwegian's account can't be trusted but the CPD's can? Why? Also most drugs are not federal crimes and it sounds like he wasn't arrested for it, so there's no record and therefore no reason to prevent lawful entry.
      - IncreasePosts 1y ago
        Let's ask the Norwegian if there was in fact a picture of his drug paraphernalia on his phone. That should help us resolve the issue. If there was that picture, it would be totally weird that he only mentioned his JD Vance meme and not the drug picture
        throwawayq3423 1y ago
        Again photos of illicit materials on your phone is not grounds for refusal of entry into a country. There is no law for that.
        IncreasePosts 1y ago
        The law for entry to a country is not "you're allowed in so long as there is now law specifically making what you did illegal in the country"

hermanzegerman 1y ago

[flagged]

IncreasePosts 1y ago
Has the professor shared what their messages actually were? This is the same exact issue that this thread is about - it's impossible to judge this without any kind of detail except the outcome. The messages were described by the source in your article “reflect[ing] hatred toward Trump and can be described as terrorism”, and “hateful and conspiratorial messages”. Maybe they were? Who knows?

tensor 1y ago

You mean the Canadian who went to the southern border to "get a new work permit" after securing a new job? Yeah, real sketchy that, applying for a work permit to work in the country.

IncreasePosts 1y ago
You secure your work permit at a consular office in Canada, you don't try to enter the US on one type of visa with the intent to convert it to a work visa once you're in. That's called preconceived intent and is against the rules.
- tensor 1y ago
  She was not on a visa. Believe it or not Canadians can travel to the US without a visa. She also had a lawyer who advised going to the border. It was all 100% legal and standard practice.
  - account42 1y ago
    Trying to enter via the Mexican border after being denied entry at the Canadian border and not first resolving that with the Embassy is very far from standard practice and if her lawyer actually recommended that she should seek a better one.