NS woman denied entry

[trailmix 77]

In other words, it doesn't sound to me like someone whose knee jerk reaction was to cry discrimination and I'm a little surprised at the consensus developing here. I don't doubt that they pulled her aside because of the spousal thing, but I can also see why after coming back to the airport with all the documentation they asked for and still getting turned back she'd start to consider other explanations.

I'm really not sure what consensus you would be surprised at Caladan?

Well actually, we could be totally off base and they may have pulled her out of line because she had a headscarf on - I mean we don't really know. But she is basically saying she was denied entry because she was wearing said headscarf and I just don't think that is the case.

She came back the next day with an employer letter and some bank statements - as she said she was told to do and was still denied entry. Did she buy a return ticket as well? Should note also, that while she had visited him before, they are newlyweds - so she wasn't going to visit her 'Husband' before - plus, for previous visits did she have a return ticket?

Now whether or not she wasn't let in on the second try because of racial profiling or not, well, we also don't know that. However I do think it's silly of her to jump to that conclusion immediately (not for being pulled out of line, but for being denied entry).

Did these border guards treat her badly? Did they really yell at her? Yes, they probably did - despite their denial of that, it seems completely plausible.

It happens every day. Frankly i'm glad this story is getting news attention, more of them should. While I don't deny their right to deny her entry, there are more than a few people, even here on VJ, that have been treated disrespectfully - and I personally don't see what the border guards (who do this, many of them are nice, as we know) gain from this.

But also important, I think, is that the U.S. is of course discriminating against travellers from certain countries, it's published, it's out there and they really don't give a damn what anyone else thinks.

I don't think that we, as Canadians, can really continue to look at visiting the U.S. as visiting the 'friendly, welcoming' place it might have once been for us. You would probably get less hassle visiting a different country.

[sachinky 464]

Here's the thing: it's their country, they can deny entry to whoever they please, for whatever reason they choose. Entering the U.S. as a tourist is a privilege that is accorded to individuals at the discretion of the U.S. government -- it is not an inherent right. Canadian or not.

Edited January 10, 2010 by sachinky

[trailmix 77]

Here's the thing: it's their country, they can deny entry to whoever they please, for whatever reason they choose. Entering the U.S. as a tourist is a privilege that is accorded to insdividuals at the discretion of the U.S. government -- it is not an inherent right. Canadian or not.

While that's true, that's not really what this discussion is about in general, it's about the claim this person made that her denial was based on racial profiling.

I haven't seen anyone imply that it is an inherent right for a Canadian to be able to enter the U.S. (including the woman in the article)

Edited January 10, 2010 by trailmix

[Revenesque 2]

I haven't seen anyone imply that it is an inherent right for a Canadian to be able to enter the U.S. (including the woman in the article)

Not here on VJ, but a few ignorant Canadians did on the CBC article comments.

[zenaxe 22]

While I can see why there are good reasons to deny her entry, I can see why she's feeling bad. It's a handful of days after the underwear bomber, and she's never had a problem in the past. All the articles say she's traveled regularly between the U.S. and Canada, so presumably, even though she's married to a U.S. citizen, she hasn't had issues visiting and her evidence of non-immigrant intent in the past has been sufficient. And she returned with all the information they told her to have, and they still wouldn't let her through. And no one's said to her that the problem was that they suspected her of immigrant intent -- those of you denied entry surely were told why, and that you'd have to get a fiance or spousal visa -- and it's curious that no one seems to have mentioned that to her.

In other words, it doesn't sound to me like someone whose knee jerk reaction was to cry discrimination and I'm a little surprised at the consensus developing here. I don't doubt that they pulled her aside because of the spousal thing, but I can also see why after coming back to the airport with all the documentation they asked for and still getting turned back she'd start to consider other explanations.

The underwear bomber should officially be called THE GINCH THAT STOLE CHRISTMAS - well almost did. Sorry it's lame but I just had to throw that out there

[ValerieA 350]

The underwear bomber should officially be called THE GINCH THAT STOLE CHRISTMAS - well almost did. Sorry it's lame but I just had to throw that out there

[Revenesque 2]

Her story makes it into CNN:

http://cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2010/01/08...m.profiling.cnn

[sachinky 464]

A lot of the comments on the article did seem to suggest that Canadians should be able to cross the border at will.

You're right in your observation that Canadians, have always viewed visiting the U.S. as visiting the 'friendly, welcoming' place because they've have been accorded special privileges (no B2, and technically no WVP either, I believe). However, that may no longer be true -- that's what I was commenting on. Because travelling to and from Canada used to be absolutely hassle-free -- especially when compared to other countries -- plenty of Canadians don't realize that things have changed. Most people still assume or adopt the mentality that just because Canada and the U.S. are friendly neighbors, and happen to share a border/same landmass, they will be allowed entry without any trouble. Mostly, because in the past, it used to be no big deal.

I admit that I also used to think that way (that Canadians could come and go as they pleased and vice-versa) till I read about the tons of cases here on VJ where Canadians where denied entry at POE.

[Rhiannercakes 14]

I think those Canadians who think they can cross at will have never really done anything to make the border people angry or want to deny them. They've just never experienced it.

I thought I'd be fine when I tried to POE last March on a one way ticket, boy was I wrong.

And sadly, some people will just keep thinking they can come and go as they please until something happens to them.

[Dylan'sWife 2]

You're not even allowed to use your cell phone in secondary.

You aren't allowed to use your phone call in first inspection either. Any one knows that getting bounced at the boarder, that you better give it more than 24 hours before you try again. My friend (Canadian) was recently turned back when traveling by car to NYC with her USC fiance because she claimed she was going to fly home 'sometime' after the New Year and didn't have a ticket to prove it. They told her not to attempt re-enter for another 6 months.

[Dylan'sWife 2]

And the fact that she has never had problems in the past might be as simple as what the first question the CBP asked her. One time, all I was asked was if I had any fruit on me- and a simple NO and my passport was stamped. But I knew if by chance they asked me who I was visiting (my husband) it would lead to many more questions and possibly a denial.

Any time someone is denied because they strongly suspect immigration intent, they will generally tell them to wait at least 6 months before trying to re-enter (just like my friend was). The probable fact that she was also very difficult with them the day before (used her cell phone) and and obviously had it in her head that this was based on her faith speaks to her demeanor, would probably leave them unwilling to accommodate her the next day even if it was completely up to their discretion and arbitrary. But again, the general practice is they like to see many months to pass before attempting re-entry.

There is nothing unique about the way she was treated or her denial- she seems to think that she is the only refused person in the history of that POE at was escorted out. It's common practice. I was once bounced at Detroit making a day trip by bus- and was escorted back by CBP and this was even prior to 9/11.

Now that she is on record slandering the CBP agency and publicly lying (she was NEVER at the gate) she never cleared customs yet you believe her when she says she was never told WHY she was denied? She KNOWS why was denied- it's the reason she believes/claims and her pathetic attempts to cause controversy that is crux of the issue.

While I can see why there are good reasons to deny her entry, I can see why she's feeling bad. It's a handful of days after the underwear bomber, and she's never had a problem in the past. All the articles say she's traveled regularly between the U.S. and Canada, so presumably, even though she's married to a U.S. citizen, she hasn't had issues visiting and her evidence of non-immigrant intent in the past has been sufficient. And she returned with all the information they told her to have, and they still wouldn't let her through. And no one's said to her that the problem was that they suspected her of immigrant intent -- those of you denied entry surely were told why, and that you'd have to get a fiance or spousal visa -- and it's curious that no one seems to have mentioned that to her.

In other words, it doesn't sound to me like someone whose knee jerk reaction was to cry discrimination and I'm a little surprised at the consensus developing here. I don't doubt that they pulled her aside because of the spousal thing, but I can also see why after coming back to the airport with all the documentation they asked for and still getting turned back she'd start to consider other explanations.

[Dylan'sWife 2]

Her story makes it into CNN:

http://cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2010/01/08...m.profiling.cnn

I bet most of people not familiar with immigration law who watch the video can't even distinguished the difference between the two agencies (TSA and CBP).