>

Saturday, June 23, 2018

ICE is Sick (Canadian Border Edition)


By Jon Hernandez

A visitor from France says she was jogging along the beach south of White Rock, B.C., when she crossed the U.S. border without realizing it. So began a two-week nightmare that landed her in a prison jumpsuit.

Cedella Roman, 19, didn't know it at the time, but as she ran southeast along the beach on the evening of May 21, she crossed a municipal boundary — and, shortly after, an international border.

As the tide started to come in, she veered up and onto a dirt path before stopping to take a photo of the picturesque setting.

She turned around to head back — and that's when
she was apprehended by two U.S. Border Patrol officers.

"An officer stopped me and started telling me I had crossed the border illegally," she told CBC News.

"I told him I had not done it on purpose, and that I didn't understand what was happening."

Roman said she didn't see any signs warning that she was crossing into the U.S. during her jog. She was informed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers that she had entered the country illegally, which they said was captured via security cameras.

"I said to myself, well I may have crossed the border — but they'll probably only give me a fine or they'll tell me to go back to Canada or they'll give me a warning."

Her mother lives in North Delta, B.C.

She said the officers detained her for crossing illegally into Blaine, Wash., and transferred her more than 200 kilometres south to the Tacoma Northwest Detention Centre, run by the Department of Homeland Security.

"They put me in the caged vehicles and brought me into their facility," she said. "They asked me to remove all my personal belongings with my jewelry, they searched me everywhere.

"Then I understood it was getting very serious, and I started to cry a bit."

Read the rest here.

22 comments:

  1. What?!? No post from Lab Manager about brown people slipping across our borders to take our jobs?!?

    ReplyDelete
  2. So, obviously this incident has nothing to do with protecting muh country and everything to do with ICE sending a message. They clearly want the world to know that they employ a bunch of goons along the border who are eager to harass you whether you’re a threat or not, so don’t even try.

    But fortunately this strategy is not without risk. ICE agents are tax-subsidized parasites, and if they overplay their hand, decent people might tire of being forced to bankroll their thuggery. Hopefully this is what will occur.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You give them too much credit. My guess is that like many in law enforcement ICE agents have to meet certain numerical thresholds to score well on their annual performance reviews. A 19 year old girl is just a way to get more points without any personal risk and a low amount of effort.


      Delete
    2. It's a good thing she wasn't a mom jogging with her child, otherwise ICE would have kidnapped the kid, made him or her disappear inside the States and you would have a string of Trumpistas giving her free "parenting" advise on Fox & Friends.

      Delete
  3. Yes, this is a bit much. But let us remember that no one flees from Canada to the US.

    And she is prettier than all those low IQ fat stinky brown squatters coming from the southern border. I'm ok with letting in 'hot' immigrant women; we all know most American women are fat entitled career feminist cows.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Always reaching for the higher moral ground, eh, Manager?

      Delete
    2. I realize you are too ignorant to process what I wrote. We don't need more low IQ dirt world rubbish. I would also include allegedly high IQ. It's clear the founders of the US favored white men of good character. If you black, brown, yellow and get the Western concepts of liberty, you are welcome to stay. For the most part though, limited government is unique to certain race and cultures. I've yet to see proof debunking anything I've said.

      Delete
    3. Re: He-Who-Fantasizes-About-White-European-Males

      --- But let us remember that no one flees from Canada to the US. ---

      You can't possibly know that.

      Delete
    4. LM:"For the most part though, limited government is unique to certain race and cultures."

      LM, you forget or ignore the other side of this ironic coin: the unbridled, brazen, culture destroying, mass murdering unlimited govt. of these same races and cultures you refer to.

      Delete
  4. I challenge any open border libertardian to show me that race, IQ, and culture don't matter.

    https://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2018/06/chain-migrations-effect-on-one.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If IQ and culture matter, then shouldn’t we get rid of you?

      Delete
    2. Instead of a retarded insult, answer the article and the issues. I can only hope that you will be killed or maimed by an illegal alien.

      Delete
  5. Exactly Evan. Lab M, you don’t come close to exemplifying the so called American Judeo-Christian culture. So what culture are you talking about? Can you explain it? Capn Mike is ignorant? Seriously?
    What you are obviously to ignorant to understand is that many of us understand you completely, and reject Statist loving scum like you. We simply reject State violence to resolve issues. Period. It’s as simple as that.
    It’s sad that you and your little brain can’t comprehend it, but none of us are demanding such a simple Minded fool as you be ejected from America.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Under Common Law (which we're slowly but surely abandoning these days in favor of expedient Statutory Law), there was a long-standing requirement that true crimes (e.g. murder, rape, fraud, theft, etc) contain, as an element of the crime, some sort of knowledge or intent to do bad, to commit the wrongfulness, etc. It is called "mens rea"---i.e. "guilty mind/knowledge." This fake crime---victimless crime---is a prime example of the "nouveau criminal justice" in this country, where a person can be arrested and punished for unknowingly and unintentionally
    breaking the law; It's one of the pitfalls of Statutory Law, which, unlike Common Law, does not arise on a case-by-case basis and midwifed by logic and reason...is not "discovered" via the process of dispute resolution; Statutory Law is political, it is expedient, it is arbitrary, and invites corruption.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is also the lack of a victim. Who was harmed by this non-crime that Miss Roman allegedly committed?

      Delete
  7. This example illustrates part of the inanity (leaving aside the immorality) of advocating for state management of the border. A private-property owner would most likely have said "OK, get off my property" and watched her leave; maybe he would later post a border sign to prevent this from happening again. But no, the state's goons transport her over 100 miles deeper INTO the property they were allegedly protecting, and then use two weeks of taxpayer money to hold and process her! Just one more example of the concept that people are much less careful when they're spending someone else's money than when they're spending their own.

    Yet these are the goons the state-management-of-the-border crowds want to act on their behalf.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More likely if the beach were privately owned the property owner would not care if a few joggers passed though. Even more likely the property owner may find it beneficial to their own existence to have people enjoy their property in such a manner.

      Delete
    2. Alex, agreed, and you implicitly bring up another important point. Each private-property owner could make his own decision about trespassers; some may not allow them, some may, some may charge them, some may not, etc. But when the state makes the decision, it is one decision that forcibly binds everyone in society, not all of whom would necessarily agree with that decision.

      Delete
    3. @Alex

      I think this is a massively important point. Consider the case of highways. If a highway were privately owned, the owner would try to maximize his profit, which would presumably include attracting as much traffic as he could handle. It would make no sense for him to simply ban 95% of the world’s population from driving on his road due to national status.

      This is why it drives me crazy to hear Hoppe and co tell us that we should strive to administer public property as if it were privately owned while at the same time advocating arbitrary, inefficient, continent-sized restrictions that a free market would never tolerate.

      Delete
    4. Evan,

      It has been about ten years since my reading Hoppe on immigration. Maybe his opinions have changed but what I remember Hoppe saying is immigration should be based first on private property but in light of our current and foreseeable situation some restrictions will foster freedom better than governments seeming arbitrary policies or simple open borders.

      Delete
    5. Alex,

      He makes the analogy that, if we have public libraries, they should be able to kick out bums, because a that’s what a private library would do. I agree with his point about the library, but the analogy doesn’t scale up to a 3 million square mile area, for many reasons.

      Rather there’s every reason to expect that most “general use” types of properties would NOT have such exclusive admission criteria if they were private.

      Delete
    6. I even think that Hoppe runs into trouble in the library example, because, if memory serves me correctly, he suggests that the state should manage the public library as a sort of trustee for the taxpayers. There are a number of issues with this line of thinking, not the least of which is that taxpayers are an intellectually diverse bunch, and some who aren't that interested in the books may want their tax dollars to be used to provide a shelter for the homeless. In other words, it's impossible for the state to act on behalf of taxpayers and faithfully represent their preferences, even on a small scale, because there are so many conflicts. This tends to lead to the default of "What would the majority want?", in which case one is left venerating democracy (awkward for someone like Hoppe).

      Delete