Brits visiting Canada detained after accidentally driving into USA

[ronandannette]

No, you misunderstand. Or maybe I wasn't clear. I said US Customs gave me a hard time. Canadian customs cheerfully welcomed me to Manitoba.

I did misunderstand - what a relief! I was disappointed with us there for a minute. Maybe if you'd gone further east and tried to re-enter into Minnesota, I hear those folks are real friendly too!

 

[Moliphino]

I travel all the time and I've literally never been interrogated coming into the US (or other countries). The most questions I've been asked was when I was going from France to the UK.

It wasn't a literal police-like interrogation, but the agents are always surly and look at you suspiciously when asking random stuff (more details on what we spent when they already have it all right there on the form you have to fill out, what our jobs are, etc). In Europe we've sometimes not been asked anything at all, sometimes "business or pleasure?" and how long we'd be there. That's it.

 

[bcla]

I'm thinking that the confusion is in whether there is just one border crossing stop, or two.

I thought the question being asked was whether the US is hiring Canadians to perform preclearance duties. Of course the answer is that they’re American employees stationed overseas, like US Marines serving at an embassy or foreign service workers.

And my comment about firearms wasn’t meant to say there’s anything different. When I’ve entered Canada all the CBSA officers were armed.

 

[Julie's Haircut]

The family was sent back to the UK earlier today.

CBP released the video showing them crossing the border. It's at night, so it's difficult to see if there was any animal in the road. The car appears to slow down, stop, then slowly cross the bumpy grass median/ditch and continue on the US side. Definitely not a quick swerve to avoid an obstacle.

https://globalnews.ca/news/6041508/uk-family-detained-ice-released/
May have to turn off ad blocker to see video.

 

[VandVsmama]

The family was sent back to the UK earlier today.

CBP released the video showing them crossing the border. It's at night, so it's difficult to see if there was any animal in the road. The car appears to slow down, stop, then slowly cross the bumpy grass median/ditch and continue on the US side. Definitely not a quick swerve to avoid an obstacle.

https://globalnews.ca/news/6041508/uk-family-detained-ice-released/
May have to turn off ad blocker to see video.

After seeing that video, I think the UK couple's story is a bunch of bunk. They deliberately tried to sneak across the border. And yes, it's not illegal to bring a whole bunch of cash with you. But it IS illegal to not declare it.

 

[Pink Partridge]

That video says it all. The title of this thread is no longer accurate.

 

[EMom]

Once again, a poorly researched and reported story produces mass outrage, only to fizzle and fall apart when the facts are disclosed. I miss the days when “journalists” were more concerned with accuracy than with getting the story out first, no matter that it’s a load of horse manure. This is why I generally suppress outrage for at least a few days when such stories are reported. All too often, I realize that even a few minutes of research would’ve made the story a nonevent, not worthy of a yawn...let alone outrage.

 

[wgeo]

Once again, a poorly researched and reported story produces mass outrage, only to fizzle and fall apart when the facts are disclosed. I miss the days when “journalists” were more concerned with accuracy than with getting the story out first, no matter that it’s a load of horse manure. This is why I generally suppress outrage for at least a few days when such stories are reported. All too often, I realize that even a few minutes of research would’ve made the story a nonevent, not worthy of a yawn...let alone outrage.

The Headline on the original story was clearly clickbait. However, where in the story was this poor reporting? They provided the information that was available at the time. They clearly labeled things as the opinion of the family or their lawyer and the reached out for quotes from government officials to get the other side of the story.

Did things evolve as more information was finally released? Yes, of course and then news articles were updated with that further information.

Almost collectively everyone on this thread read the article and came away with the opinion that the family's story was fishy. There was no "mass outrage" at all, the reaction was pretty much meh - this family and their story don't sound right.

Are you indicating that no news should be reported ever until months after the fact to make sure that no new information comes out? Exactly how long are you comfortable with waiting to get information?

I miss the days when people didn't blindly label journalists as the enemy.

 

[Princessclab]

Ah yeah I was referring to the original post from the Sun.

I am not being sarcastic here. Is the Washington Post not considered reliable?

I know someone mentioned that SkyNews was the only one reporting this side of the story. But that was a false statement. My link yesterday was from the Washington Post, not SkyNews.

And, believe me, I am not crazy about Wapo. Just curious if it is widely known as an unreliable source.

No the Washington Post is not a reliable source; very tabloid journalism.

 

[Wakey]

The question would be for most UK citizens- where did this large amount of cash come from, and was tax paid on the way it was earnt?

 

[MillauFr]

No the Washington Post is not a reliable source; very tabloid journalism.

The vast majority of the articles in the Post are factual hard news stories. Yes they hire opinion writers. To claim the Post is tabloid journalism is not accurate

 

[Hikergirl]

The Headline on the original story was clearly clickbait. However, where in the story was this poor reporting? They provided the information that was available at the time. They clearly labeled things as the opinion of the family or their lawyer and the reached out for quotes from government officials to get the other side of the story.

Did things evolve as more information was finally released? Yes, of course and then news articles were updated with that further information.

Almost collectively everyone on this thread read the article and came away with the opinion that the family's story was fishy. There was no "mass outrage" at all, the reaction was pretty much meh - this family and their story don't sound right.

Are you indicating that no news should be reported ever until months after the fact to make sure that no new information comes out? Exactly how long are you comfortable with waiting to get information?

I miss the days when people didn't blindly label journalists as the enemy.

How about journalist do their research and get BOTH sides so they can accurately report the story?
Of course that wouldn’t help them perpetuate a certain narrative. Got to keep the people clicking and the more outraged people get the more they will continue to follow the story. They know that people will buy what they report hook line and sinker just by reading a headline. Says more about society than it does the media though.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

The individuals's stories didn't really seem to make a huge ton of sense to me. Maybe that's because I've watched various border security style shows on netflix (U.S. and international) that the details just seemed overdramatic. The chicken soup kinda striked me as an odd comment from them. If they thought that was bad wonder what they think about all the people who eat ramen noodles like that

There are ways to take a wrong exit on a highway and end up at the US/Canadian border by accident. However, these individuals did not have that happen. Their animal story was weak one at best and purposefully going through a ditch yeah ok. In terms of the article from the original post the couple was quoted as having said "if they could “simply turn around” unfortunately no that's not how it works to the best of my knowledge. On the American border security show I saw whenever I saw Canadians unintentionally take the wrong exit on the highway and end up at the Border they still have to have the intial check. If nothing was noted as being amiss it was a quick process and they were sent onto a road that would bring them back into Canada. Depending on various factors (including the person(s) demeanor) they may be pulled into secondary where the car is actually looked through and more in-depth questioning is done. I never saw them just allow someone to turn around. You still had to abide by the initial check.

As far as money goes it's not entirely suspicious that amount but it can be. Not declaring whatever excess you have is a big no no (to any country I've seen shows on which usually results in an automatic seizure of the excess allowed and a fine for failure to declare xyz) but as we've seen they didn't appear to intend to go through an actual border check but rather go through a ditch. I would say it's a good thing there is footage here of that.

Entering a country where you have been denied previously is such a big red flag. No wonder they want people to see a certain side and give sympathy. Maybe they hope people forget that detail. That's not to say I don't realistically see situations where we have a case of someone who came over illegally after a denial but their situation speaks more towards bureaucratic red tape even when that's wrong their situation brings light to a specific issue than willful disobedience (the couple appear to fall into the latter category).

I'm not entirely certain what actually happened between the British Embassy, Canada and the U.S. as the couple states the British Embassy attempted to contact them, Canada refused re-entry and the U.S. stated they attempted to reach out to the British Embassy with no results. Was this a case of he said/she said only in the case of persons and countries or was this a situation where communication broke down somewhere.

Question as I haven't dug around too too much. Has it come out why Canada refused re-entry? I'm not so interested in a country vs country thing here I just wondered if they had more information to add to the puzzle like it was when it was discovered they were denied a vistor's visa (and I still want to know why they were denied a vistor's visa by the U.S.).

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

On border crossing stories the only one I have is from my husband.

Him and a few of his coworkers at least 5+ years ago had to go to Saskatchewan, specifically Saskatoon, to inspect equipment and overall conditions of a power plant in the midst of being built. They were there on business, declared they were on business, had the proper paperwork and all and it is the going assumption that they were detained due to this (understandable really). They were detained for over 3 hours and were all questioned fairly heavily.

I don't know if my husband knows anyone that has had other issues though in Mexico, Germany, France, etc but it's possible. My husband went to Japan for business but didn't have any issues there.

 

[CdnCarrie]

No the Washington Post is not a reliable source; very tabloid journalism.

Someone's drank the kool-aid.

 

[MillauFr]

This chart is an interesting perspective on bias in the media.

https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/

 

[kerry1379]

I agree with everyone that their story sounded fishy from the get-go. It concerns me that these people were trying to sneak into a country with a considerable amount of money AND with some of their party previously having been denied entry...well it doesn't just sound fishy to me. It sounds threatening. I am really wondering what their real intent was though we will probably never know.

 

[RedAngie]

.OK, I know why that woman was so cranky. In one article she complained that she could only smoke during certain times and that they denied her "fizzy drinks."

 

[CdnCarrie]

So was the brother married to a Canadian citizen?

 

[EMom]

The Headline on the original story was clearly clickbait. However, where in the story was this poor reporting? They provided the information that was available at the time. They clearly labeled things as the opinion of the family or their lawyer and the reached out for quotes from government officials to get the other side of the story.

Did things evolve as more information was finally released? Yes, of course and then news articles were updated with that further information.

Almost collectively everyone on this thread read the article and came away with the opinion that the family's story was fishy. There was no "mass outrage" at all, the reaction was pretty much meh - this family and their story don't sound right.

Are you indicating that no news should be reported ever until months after the fact to make sure that no new information comes out? Exactly how long are you comfortable with waiting to get information?

I miss the days when people didn't blindly label journalists as the enemy.

I seem to remember the first several posts here (and on other sites) were full of outrage. Then the facts began to emerge. Journalism is a pale shadow of what it used to be. Fact checking is a nearly forgotten skill. True investigative reporters are a dying breed. Story after story is debunked soon after the heartstrings of readers have been pulled to get the story out first. The truth seems to matter not much at all.

Stories break and some people’s internal hiney-meter goes off, because some of the details just sound off. We then ask why the journalists didn’t pick up on these fishy aspects, but all too often, they ignore what is right in front of their face. So no, I do not have confidence in them, the way I once did.

I grew up admiring journalists for their sleuthing skills and desire to get the truth out there. It is very difficult to do that today. Their goal seems to have changed too much.