US Customs agent denies entry into the US to a Canadian woman based on her medical background! WTH?

reply to post by intrepid


I found an odd thing when running cross border loads. The Customs shacks don't exist in our reality. That goes for laws, attitudes and limitations on their action, as reality has it anywhere else.

One driver for Cannon Express in the late 90's got himself a couple days "vacation" up there while others had to scramble and cover his load. His crime? He ridiculed the Canadian custom's agent. Something like answering "I come from America, EH?" when asked his origin/citizenship. The precise wording escapes me this long after, but the hard "Eh" crossing into Quebec was what tripped the guys trigger. I doubt some things inside that truck ever worked right again after the wall to sheet metal search his truck got.

They seem to do things their own way....just like the Customs checkpoints now ranging DEEP DEEP inside the US interior and still carrying all the exceptions and exemptions from things like probable cause search that carries on the physical border itself.

The fact they merge access to databases any mere mortal would go to jail for even SEEING some areas of (Thanks to HIPPA) doesn't shock me. It only surprises me that they were dumb enough to make the criteria obvious for source.

guess that means I won't be going to Canada soon if all this is going on.

I have so many disorders of the mental variety, they'd sooner bring Gary Busey across before me

TheToastmanCometh
guess that means I won't be going to Canada soon if all this is going on.

I have so many disorders of the mental variety, they'd sooner bring Gary Busey across before me

Actually it the other way that's the problem. Busey? We've already got Randy Quaid.

reply to post by intrepid


Ahh good ol' Randy.

I knew his comedic acting was too good to be true

I'm an American tour director who did many trips to Canada over the years--mostly Nova Scotia.

The border crossings into Canada were always a dicey proposition. Sometimes there would be someone on my tour bus who had something like a DUI twenty years ago, and the Canadian border agents would sometimes decide one of these passengers couldn't cross the border. We'd have to leave them there and call the tour company for someone to come and pick them up.

So many tour participants got left at the border over the years, I begged the companies I worked for to warn potential passengers that the Canadian border crossing was a very dicey thing and that if anyone had any indiscretions in the past, they should re-think doing the trip. The indiscretions could even be moving violations in their cars---it didn't have to be something serious.

I did a lot of research on it and wrote an article about it. People have to start realizing that Canada is no longer a fun place to go and visit for some people who may have concerns from their pasts. I read about one woman who got turned away because they thought she looked poor and she wasn't carrying her financial records with her! When she drove 3 hours home to get them, they still wouldn't let her cross because they said she didn't make enough money.

There are some really, really bad stories out there from truckers, tour directors and travelers about crossing the border. Most of it started when George Bush gave the Canadian border agents access to the criminal records of Americans after 9/11. To be fair, the Americans have started to be just as tough on Canadians.

But this is all part of the "new normal" as they warm us up to the police state they are creating.

I grew up near the Canadian border and find it so sad that this is the state of affairs these days. I have fond memories of going to Canada often and saw that country as our friendly neighbor.

Welcome to the new world, my friends.

reply to post by meemaw


From my blog entry which analyzed Bill C-6 which eventually became Bill C-36 and was given the third reading and the "legal" kick into play...

Hell and Paradise

April 24. 2010 - I heard the Canadian government is pushing bill C-6 through, they’ve fastracked it, so get ready, if they make it law, ALL of your rights are gone. The police can walk into your house because you buy an LED light or some “flavour of the day” electronics. PLUS, it allows the implementation of Codex Alimentarius and as well, the government CAN SHARE ALL OF YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION WITH ANY INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION.

“Bill C-6 is a outright fraud and a deliberate attempt to steal property and destroy personal privacy by the government of Canada and their corporate overlords. The writers and any MP's supporting Bill C-6 should be charged with treason, as the rules and statutes fly in the face of the rule of law, the constitution and a person's right to privacy and noninterference, by not only the government, but by foreign corporations. Bill C-6 is an attack on Canada's sovereignty as a nation leaving its citizens open to abuse and manipulation by foreign governments and corporations. I site both the interpretations under Section 2 outlining "Confidential Business Information" and "Government" as defined in Bill C-6 (shown below) including Section 16.

Reasons for inspection as outlined in Section 20 are simply stated as "compliance" and that an inspector "annointed" by the Minister under Section 18 may acquire a warrant from a justice of the peace (not a judge) if a resident of a home or operator of a vehicle does not want to be inspected. There is no reasonable grounds for suspicion on the part of the "inspector" other than the owner of a home or vehicle refuses entry. Once inside, the inspector may use, examine, view and seize anything they wish and under law you may not resist. Therefore, if you have a nice new ipod and the inspector thinks you've been copyright infringing, there goes your ipod. If they want your computer, there it goes, maybe your whole house due to proximity. If you have a thumb drive in the player in your new Corvette, there goes your Corvette. A government's or corporation's power, whether domestic or foreign under this bill, is literally limitless.

Then we have forfeiture under Section 25 to Her former majesty. Her former Majesty of the former Great Britain, former Queen Elizabitch II (the sequal) gave Royal Accent and signed the Treaty of Lisbon in June 2008 which produced the de facto ownership of Great Britain by the European Union, renamed as Zone K )you can look this up in the MSM UK newspapers as of December 1st, 2009). If we go back to the 10th century, we actually find that all of England was given to Roman Catholic Church by the Normans and left to the Norman-English "monarchs" to simply manage. Royalty is in name only and they lease the land from the Vatican. But I digress, the point is that your property seized by the appointed inspector who had no cause or suspicion in obtaining a warrant other than because you refused to have your personal space violated, is now the property of the government and if they need to store it, you have to pay for the storage!

Then we have the new rules such as "Section 13.(3) The Minister may, subject to any terms and conditions that he or she may specify, exempt a person from the requirement to keep documents in Canada if the Minister considers it unnecessary or impractical for the person to keep them in Canada." One rule fits all, I cannot see how a Bill peppered throughout with this kind of statement can work. It is not only unfair, it flies it the face of reason, a minister may protect a "friend" or "relative" from this legislation just because he or she "feels" like it.

Bill C-6 cannot be allowed to pass into law. If it does become law, we can expect to see a massive erosion of our privacy rights as all private information can be shared with foreign corporations along with the loss of property due to arbitrary decisions by Minister appointed "hit men" in the guise of inspectors as well as increased corruption over the already untenable amount within governments, banks and corporations.”

From Bill C-6

“confidential business information” — in respect of a person to whose business or affairs the information relates — means business information

(a) that is not publicly available;
(b) in respect of which the person has taken measures that are reasonable in the circumstances to ensure that it remains not publicly available; and
(c) that has actual or potential economic value to the person or their competitors because it is not publicly available and its disclosure would result in a material financial loss to the person or a material financial gain to their competitors.

“government” means any of the following or their institutions:

(a) the federal government;
(b) a corporation named in Schedule III to the Financial Administration Act;
(c) a provincial government or a public body established under an Act of the legislature of a province;
(d) an aboriginal government as defined in subsection 13(3) of the Access to Information Act;
(e) a government of a foreign state or of a subdivision of a foreign state; or
(f) an international organization of states.

16. The Minister may disclose confidential business information to a person or a government that carries out functions relating to the protection of human health or safety or the environment — in relation to a consumer product — without the consent of the person to whose business or affairs the information relates and without notifying that person if the person to whom or government to which the information may be disclosed agrees in writing to maintain the confidentiality of the information and to use it only for the purpose of carrying out those functions.

INSPECTORS

Designation

18. (1) The Minister may designate an individual as an inspector for the purpose of the administration and enforcement of this Act and the regulations.

(2) An inspector shall be given a certificate in a form established by the Minister attesting to the inspector’s designation and, on entering a place under subsection 20(1), the inspector shall, on request, produce the certificate to the person in charge of that place.

Obstruction and false statements

19. No person shall knowingly obstruct, hinder or knowingly make a false or misleading statement either orally or in writing to an inspector who is carrying out their functions.

Are we having fun yet?

Cheers - Dave

I cross the border many times never had an issue, in fact it is getting easier, both ways.
I get usually 2 question now, where are you going, and why ? That's it.
Before I had my passport I usually had 6-8 questions. Using a passport has really helped.

reply to post by whitewave


Their good business for big pharma.

There is probably a lot more to it than that.

This happened all the time on Ellis Island.

Back in the day some of my relatives crossed over,

Legally I might add, and they were all tested for Nastiness A,B,C, and Eeeeeew !

It was a brutal process. But in all due fairness and the security of a populace,

you just cannot let Typhoid Mary just stroll on in...

Mentally,Physically, nor Otherwise.

Let me ask you, would you rather security just turn a blind eye to it?

Would you value a temporary inconvenience to one "in transit" individual so much

as to outweigh the secure well being of your neighbors ,friends, relatives,

fellow countrymen, and generally peaceful of the world?

Just Remember, all it takes is one biologically infected ,

or (shall i say) "malware" programmed individual

to be the catalyst that will make you puke and shtt at the same time for eternity.

I Know, I know, you say she is innocent. S&F to You