SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A Vancouver man was denied entry into the United States after a US Customs and Border Patrol officer read his profiles on the gay hookup app Scruff and the website BBRT.
[...] André, a 30-year-old Vancouver set decorator who declined to give his full name for fear of retaliation from US Customs, describes the experience as "humiliating."[He] says he was planning to visit his boyfriend, who was working in New Orleans. But when he was going through Customs preclearance at Vancouver airport last October, he was selected for secondary inspection, where an officer took his phone, computer and other possessions, and demanded the passwords for his devices.
"I didn't know what to do. I was scared, so I gave them the password and then I sat there for at least an hour or two. I missed my flight," André says. "He came back and just started grilling me. 'Is this your email?' and it was an email attached to a Craigslist account for sex ads. He asked me, 'Is this your account on Scruff? Is this you on BBRT?' I was like, 'Yes, this is me.'"
[...] "I could tell just by his nature that he had no intentions of letting me through. They were just going to keep asking me questions looking for something," he says. "So I asked for the interrogation to stop. I asked if I go back to Canada am I barred for life? He said no, so I accepted that offer."
A month later, André attempted to fly to New Orleans again. This time, he brought what he thought was ample proof that he was not a sex worker: letters from his employer, pay stubs, bank statements, a lease agreement and phone contracts to prove he intended to return to Canada.
When he went through secondary inspection at Vancouver airport, US Customs officers didn't even need to ask for his passwords — they were saved in their own system. But André had wiped his phone of sex apps, browser history and messages, thinking that would dispel any suggestion he was looking for sex work. Instead, the border officers took that as suspicious.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 5, Insightful) by lentilla on Monday February 27 2017, @06:51AM (34 children)
What happens in other countries, if a customs officer refuses you entry? Does it make the news?
Generally speaking; in civilised countries; people going about their normal business are not refused entry. This is why it is newsworthy.
Sure, in North Korea people are probably disappeared. Iran? Well, heads might roll. The quintessential difference here is that North Korea and Iran are not civilised countries - at least by the standards of the rest of the civilised world.
The United States of America believes themselves to be a civilised country, yet their actions are regularly fall short of the bar. Far, far short. Visiting your boyfriend in a neighbouring country is a fairly normal occurrence. Look around next time you are at an airport: all those people travelling for business, tourists, and those visiting friends, family and loved ones (and perhaps the occasional drug mule). Visiting your boyfriend is an entirely normal and valid reason for travel. That is why it is newsworthy.
Those citizens of the United States who are not already ashamed of their country's behaviour most definitely should be. "Simply because the border agent has a headache" is not acceptable. There is a chain of command which should have determined that a mistake was being made and corrected it in very short order. The agent might have a headache - but that does not excuse their boss, their boss' boss, nor their ultimate boss: the citizenry.
"I think you're a degenerate, and you can't come in." Works for me!
Well, that's not the agreement. (I make the assumption here that by "degenerate" you mean "homosexual".) It's not illegal to be homosexual in the United States, in Canada, and in the rest of the civilised world. Those border agents all need to be singing from the same choir book - we can't have people denied entry for arbitrary reasons according the whim of the individual agent - even if they manage to fabricate a lame excuse (here: "I am pretending that I believe he is a sex worker".)
If there is one positive thing we can take away from this whole sorry mess is that people are willing to stand up and say "I am gay, and your treatment of me is unacceptable". This would not have happened such a short time ago. All those gay pride marches, all those homosexuals beaten and killed have not been in vain. Finally we might be able to call ourselves civilised humans.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @07:12AM
f there is one positive thing we can take away from this whole sorry mess is that people are willing to stand up and say "I am gay, and your treatment of me is unacceptable". This would not have happened such a short time ago. All those gay pride marches, all those homosexuals beaten and killed have not been in vain. Finally we might be able to call ourselves civilised humans.
Yeah, maybe! But I just checked out Runaway1956's profile on Scruff, and I am truly disgusted! Really, Runaway? Like that? Could you not just chose another account name, so we would not know it was you that wants to have something called ******* sho***** with Hillary Putin? OMG, now there is something that I can never un-see, and it will follow me to my grave. And they let Runaway into the United States? With all this evidence that he is a trafficker, or at least a former truck driver? I blame trump, and his gay advisors, Stephen Bannon, Stephen Miller, Stephen Smith, Fr. Stephan Comealotius, Peter (Peter!) Thiel, and Suckerberg, and Father Dolan, of my parish, may he perish in the sharp and steamy fires of hell, along with Milo, and that Brit guy.
(Score: 1) by Kawumpa on Monday February 27 2017, @07:46AM
Next thing you know you not only have to unlock your devices and provide passwords but also have to give a trigger warning....
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 27 2017, @07:52AM (20 children)
I think the term "undesirable" comes up in immigration processes. It may not be illegal to be homosexual in the US, but that doesn't mean that homosexuality is a desirable trait. "undesirable" is open to definition, and/or interpretation. Let me run a quick search . . .
http://sonorannews.com/new/2017/02/20/government-mandate-exclude-undesirable-foreigners/ [sonorannews.com]
A law in effect since 1952 gives our government the legal right to deny entry to enemies, potential enemies or undesirable persons: the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, commonly known as the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952.
Unless this law is reversed by Congress, our government has a mandate to prevent the immigration of potential terrorists from unfriendly regimes, specifically from the seven Muslim nations identified as terrorist sources. Not included in this list are forty-six other Muslim nations, not affected by the exclusion, whose Muslim citizens are not barred from entry, provided they obtain the required visas from our American consulates.
Shouldn’t the media make the clueless Boobus Americanus aware of this protective piece of legislation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952 [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 5, Informative) by charon on Monday February 27 2017, @09:00AM (14 children)
Wait, did you mean the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965 [wikipedia.org] or the Immigration Act of 1990 [wikipedia.org], both of which modified and negated portions of the 1952 Act? You know, the 1965 one that specifically removed "national origin, race, and ancestry" barriers as well as the quota system? And the 1990 one that specifically removed the language stating that homosexuals are "sexual deviants" and therefore undesireable? Also note that these laws (passed by congress, mind you; not borderline illegal executive orders) apply to immigrants, which refers to people coming to stay, not just visit.
You might want to actually read the pages you link to before asserting that they support your viewpoint.
As an aside, for all the crowing we do about how freedom and bravery, we Americans sure are enchained and cowardly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @09:13AM (8 children)
You might want to actually read the pages you link to before asserting that they support your viewpoint.
Ha Ha! He is Runaway! You are like the buzzing of flies to him! Do you think he needs to read! No, he knows all already! And besides, he can't read, too much, where big words are involved. Besides, I have it on good authority that the Muslins and the Calicos have targeted Runaway, just because he is so, um, average and uneducated. And it seems to be working! Soon they will Canvas him and Denim all the Cordouroy out of him with a Seersucker finish. The Horror! The Horror! The Laws that don't exist, and the Horror of tiny hands signing unconstitutional executive movements! Oh, dear.
(Score: 1) by charon on Monday February 27 2017, @09:18AM (7 children)
Thanks, but having you on my side is not necessarily helpful, aristarchus.
But anyway, Ancient Greeks together, rah rah rah!
(Score: 2, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 27 2017, @10:41AM (6 children)
Charon is a Greek? I didn't realize the gods and other characters were Greeks. That's kinda like saying that Allah is Muslim, or Jesus is Christian, or the Great Father is Seminole. Charon would have been above any national or ethnic identity. Which makes you far superior to that other character from Greek history - Aristarchus.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @04:25PM
That's kinda like saying that Allah is Muslim
Arabic speaking christians say Allah.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @04:39PM (4 children)
That's kinda like saying that ... Jesus is Christian
So you mean it is incorrect?
Ignoring the tense (these should be past tense, not present), Jesus was not Christian. Jesus was Jewish. The followers of Jesus were (or were to become) Christian, not Jesus himself.
I'm not sure about Allah, but I am guessing (I am not 100% sure) that he was not "Muslim" too. It was probably a movement which started in his wake.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 27 2017, @05:08PM (3 children)
"Christian" means "a follower of Christ" - and I imagine that it's difficult, even for a God, or a Son of a God to follow himself. (Metaphysicists may argue that point - or not.)
Allah isn't a person at all. Allah is the name of God. The name derives from one or more forms of Yahweh, I believe. Let me do a search . . . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Abrahamic_religions#Islam [wikipedia.org] That link should suffice to show that Islam's God is supposedly the same God that Jews worship.
Better link here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah [wikipedia.org]
"The etymology of the word Allāh has been discussed extensively by classical Arab philologists.[17] Grammarians of the Basra school regarded is as either formed "spontaneously" (murtajal) or as the definite form of lāh (from the verbal root lyh with the meaning of "lofty" or "hidden").[17] Others held that it was borrowed from Syriac or Hebrew, but most considered it to be derived from a contraction of the Arabic definite article al- "the" and ilāh "deity, god" to al-lāh meaning "the deity", or "the God".[17] The majority of modern scholars subscribe to the latter theory, and view the loanword hypothesis with skepticism.[18]
Cognates of the name "Allāh" exist in other Semitic languages, including Hebrew and Aramaic.[19] The corresponding Aramaic form is Elah (אלה), but its emphatic state is Elaha (אלהא). It is written as ܐܠܗܐ (ʼĔlāhā) in Biblical Aramaic and ܐܲܠܵܗܵܐ (ʼAlâhâ) in Syriac as used by the Assyrian Church, both meaning simply "God".[20] Biblical Hebrew mostly uses the plural (but functional singular) form Elohim (אלהים), but more rarely it also uses the singular form Eloah (אלוהּ)."
Since I only speak English, I can't say for sure, but I imagine that Yahweh and Allah might sound similar, when pronounced in their respective native languages. They look near enough the same to an English speaker, anyway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @05:32PM (2 children)
blah blah blah
Did you actually have a point, or were you just so triggered by the fact that christians use the word allah too that you had to say something, anything to relieve the pressure induced by cognitive dissonance?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 27 2017, @05:49PM (1 child)
It's totally pointless, like your life.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 28 2017, @05:11PM
Sick burn! Oh runaway you rule!!!!
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 27 2017, @10:37AM (4 children)
Well, good points. I realize that being homosexual doesn't rule a person out for immigration - I did read those later changes to the law. But, the changes didn't make homosexuality a "desirable" trait, either. Then again, you point out that the laws apply to "immigrants", not necessarily to a visitor, as was the case here. There is room for interpretation, and the guy on the job may do a poor job of interpreting sometimes.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @03:53PM (3 children)
This wasn't some bad judgment, or mistaken identity, it was simple prejudice. Stop being an apologist for shitty people.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 27 2017, @04:26PM (2 children)
Uhhhh - which part of "sex worker" did you fail to understand? The US doesn't want or need to import prostitutes. Those few people who do want to import prostitutes are called "human traffickers". Think about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @08:11PM (1 child)
Are you saying that circumstances (installed apps, profiles, etc) that would not be a cause for even a moment of suspicion were it for the purposes of arranging heterosexual sex, even promiscuous heterosexual sex, are evidence that the person in question is a sex worker if it's for the purposes of arranging homosexual sex?
Or does evidence of sexual promiscuity imply sex work regardless of whether heterosexual or homosexual?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 28 2017, @01:27AM
The latter sounds realistic.
(Score: 4, Touché) by tfried on Monday February 27 2017, @09:26AM
Let's forget about any formal objections that might be raised against your interpretation of the law, for the moment. I ask you Runaway1956, do you think it is good and reasonable to deny people entry due to undesirable traits such as
- ugly
- overweight
- bald
- short-sighted
- dumb
- just too clever
- jet-lagged
- old
- depressed or overly cheerful
? Do you, Runaway1956, think denying entry to homosexuals is what US border agents should be doing?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by lentilla on Monday February 27 2017, @09:27AM (3 children)
It may not be illegal to be homosexual in the US, but that doesn't mean that homosexuality is a desirable trait.
A civilised government should have no opinion regarding the desirability of homosexuality. It is; simply; none of their business.
It may be that I find redheads disgusting. That's fine (although, in truth, I'd live a happier life if I got over that particular hang-up - after all, it's a bit childish - it's not like a redhead has any choice in the matter). Whatever my personal opinion on the matter doesn't change the fact that it is not a government's job to police the fundamental construction of a human being. Judge someone by what they do, not who they are.
Much is made of that "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" - but what could be a greater personification of freedom than the freedom to be me: male, female, hetro or homo, or even (gasp!) redheaded?
"undesirable" is open to definition, and/or interpretation.
Well, it shouldn't be open to interpretation. That's what I meant by "singing from the same choir book" above. It's not even that hard: "Hello Sir, and why are you visiting the USA?" "I am here to visit a friend." "Welcome to the United States, Sir, y'all have a nice visit!" That conversation takes place thousands of time every day. This situation isn't special. It's so boringly normal.
Unless this law is reversed by Congress, our government has a mandate to prevent the immigration of potential terrorists from unfriendly regimes, specifically from the seven Muslim nations identified as terrorist sources.
Just checking here... you do know that homosexuals don't have to be Muslims, right? Well of course you do - it's just that we've been talking about a bigoted border agent and his embarrassingly incompetent change-of-command and now; suddenly; you seem to be talking about Muslims. Muslim terrorists to boot! I get the segue but the proximity of these two hot-button topics is disingenuous and clouds the issue under discussion.
I realise many people find the thought of homosexuality makes them uncomfortable. It's time for them to make peace within themselves. Homosexuality isn't going away - in fact it has always been with us - they only real difference is that we are being more honest with each other. If you find yourself being revolted by homosexuality, just stop and replace "gay person" with "red-headed person", or "short person". Think how stupid that sounds. Now take a good long look in the mirror. Keep practising and it gets easier. You aren't going to "catch the gay disease" by being in close proximity, your sons aren't going to "turn gay" unless they were gay to start with. Shakespeare says it better that I: "If you prick us, do we not bleed?" [mit.edu] Gay or straight, we are each other's brothers and sisters. There are bigger issues to worry about.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 27 2017, @10:55AM (1 child)
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/28/travel/ben-gurion-worlds-safest-airport-tel-aviv/ [cnn.com]
Profiling. In point of fact, a security (customs) agent doesn't actually need a reason to turn someone around at the border. If a particular border agent grows suspicious of someone, for ANY REASON, he can take one or more of many different actions, including denying entry.
Right or wrong, it works for Israel. It can be made to work in the US, if we pull our heads out of the sand, and stop pretending that we can't know anything about a person just by looking at him.
Now, what seems funny to me is, much of the US population insists that we always err on the side of safety - then turns around and says that we must maintain open borders, safety be damned.
Always remember this: If you go to any country in the world, attempting to gain entry for any reason at all - that country can deny you entry, for any reason at all. That includes the US of A. We don't really need a reason to tell someone they have wasted their time, they can't stay, they have to go home. If I have a house full of people, and I grow tired of their company, I can tell them all that it's time to go home - and I need not give them a reason. That even goes for my own brothers and sisters, my sons, anyone who doesn't live here, in my home.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 28 2017, @05:14PM
> Right or wrong, it works for Israel. It can be made to work in the US,
Your nihilism knows no bounds in service to your bigotry.
The US's situation is not even remotely like Israel. As the resident ISIS collaborator it obviously serves your purposes for the US to end up in a state of constant war and apartheid. So fuck you and your trumpanzee bullshit.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheRaven on Monday February 27 2017, @12:25PM
A civilised government should have no opinion regarding the desirability of homosexuality. It is; simply; none of their business.
While I agree, I don't think that's really the issue. A civilised country requires the rule of law as a prerequisite. If you are detained or prevented from movement by any kind of law enforcement officer, then they should be able to point to the specific law and to the fact that it is universally applied (at least, to the degree humanly possible within budget constraints). If he is being denied entry because he is homosexual, then all other known homosexuals should also be denied entry. If not, then he's being denied entry because, basically, someone in a position of authority doesn't like his face. At that point, you no longer have the rule of law, you have the rule of petty despots.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Monday February 27 2017, @08:47AM (9 children)
Oh plenty are ashamed, and you'd probably be shocked how many conservatives would be shocked and ashamed if they were faced with the bald truths.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday February 27 2017, @04:13PM (8 children)
you'd probably be shocked how many conservatives would be shocked and ashamed if they were faced with the bald truths.
I completely disagree. Any "conservative" who is shocked and ashamed isn't a true conservative. Real conservatives (which is most people who describe themselves as "conservative") will happily back up and make excuses for all these "bald truths", because that's how people are: they will defend, to the death, their "team", no matter how horrible their team becomes. We're seeing it right now; just look at internet comments by conservatives in any current story about some outrage, like some gay Canadian guy being horribly mistreated. I even see it among my own family: people who 5-10 years ago I never would have imagined being xenophobic, hateful Trumpists are now posting all kinds of far-right-wing insanity on their Facebook pages. The fundamental truth is that most people are "followers", and once they're following a "team" will adopt that team's opinions and mentality as their own, and it's very rare for people to change teams, especially as they get older.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @04:42PM
Yep. Same thing happened in reverse with Obama.
The black community was the most homophobic group of any significant size in the country, including evangelicals, with something like an 80/20 split against/for marriage equality. But within weeks of Obama officially endorsing marriage equality, it went to about 40/60.
Same thing with trump's putinism. Republican support for putin more than tripled since 2014 [politico.com] - 10% favorable to 37% this past december.
I think the republican meltdown is due to two reasons - (1) the authoritarians have colonized the party, it started with LBJ's support for civil rights - the republican party made a deliberate play to attract disaffected racist democrats (e.g. the southern strategy) so now there are a disproportionate number of naturally hateful people in the party. The rest are faced with the hard decision to abandon their tribe over principles that don't really affect them on a daily basis. Its easier to give up those principles than it is to make that leap into the unknown. It is nowhere near as risky as literally abandoning your tribe on the savanna to live on your own, but people still feel like it is a big deal.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Monday February 27 2017, @06:15PM (6 children)
Sure, there is plenty of tribal behavior, but there is a cause for this problem. Propaganda and lies. When I said "bald truths" I had in mind all necessary evidence to show actual reality to such people, incontrovertible facts. I've met many conservatives that do backpedal and even self-reflect when faced with proof they can't deny. This involves a lot of bullshit fact checking and is generally more trouble than its worth, but I think we should focus a bit more on the purveyors of hatred and misinformation. Hell, Glenn Beck apparently feels guilty for his role in whipping up the frothing madness.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday February 27 2017, @07:40PM (5 children)
When I said "bald truths" I had in mind all necessary evidence to show actual reality to such people, incontrovertible facts.
How is this even possible? Unless you're going to grab someone and physically drive them to show them something in-person, they're just going to dismiss your "facts" as lies because they don't believe your preferred media source. It doesn't help that many of our mainstream sources really are full of lies and half-truths, as seen during this election cycle where prominent news sources like Washington Post were clearly doing their best to trash Bernie and push Hillary.
I've met many conservatives that do backpedal and even self-reflect when faced with proof they can't deny.
Like what? Do you have any real examples? I'd love to find something to make my conservative family members back-pedal, but I'm highly skeptical; they'll just claim my information sources are wrong. Our own President now is even saying such things publicly.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Monday February 27 2017, @07:59PM (4 children)
Yes the blind trust is a problem. It takes time and research, and if someone adamantly opposed to factual evidence in favor of tribal loyalty then you have to call that out. My point was that this partisan divide is not actually as bad as people are thinking. Sure its bad, but I honestly think some of Trump's supporters will fall off as reality becomes harder and harder to ignore.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday February 27 2017, @08:18PM (3 children)
It takes time and research, and if someone adamantly opposed to factual evidence in favor of tribal loyalty then you have to call that out.
How do you know that your evidence is factual? If you didn't research it yourself firsthand, you're just trusting someone else who likely has an agenda, which we saw clearly with how Bernie was knifed in the back by the establishment and the press. Obviously, I can't trust news sources like Breitbart and WND, but I also cannot trust mainstream sources like Washington Post or NYT (which was beating the war drums in favor of Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2003). So where do I find "factual evidence"? I guess you can say that the mainstream media doesn't usually resort to outright falsehoods though, but they definitely do color their reporting a certain way to fit their agenda, so when Trump signs an executive order for something that's pretty unarguable as a fact, but that's not usually what these arguments are about.
Finally, you haven't provided me with any examples of forcing conservatives to back-pedal and self-reflect as you claim.
From my observations, you're never going to change their minds, because even if you convince them of something wrong on their "side", they'll just shift to some other issue they're invested in, usually abortion or guns or illegal immigration. Basically, it doesn't matter what GOP politicians do, even if it means locking these conservative cheerleaders up in private prisons for smoking a little pot, they'll still defend their side because "the Democrats want to take our guns", "abortion is murder", or "I hate Mexicans" (they won't say that exactly, but that's what it amounts to).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Monday February 27 2017, @09:24PM (1 child)
Found your problem: "How do you know that your evidence is factual?"
Cross referencing, research, critical thinking. You have to apply these, develop an arsenal of well documented facts. Reports from actual organizations that deal with whatever topic, quotes from politicians / legislation proposals (for the "taking our guns" stuff). But most importantly, you have to remove your own emotions. As soon as you get the tiniest bit upset you start the emotional cascade which shuts down all reasonable discussion. SO, they'll spout nonsense and you have to respond with facts. You also must understand that the shit you hate is done by the democrats as well, so conservatives have legitimate complaints too. You must acknowledge and not dismiss those complaints.
If you really care, then document the process, write down all the lies you got them to see, etc. etc. I don't have any go-to documents prepared so I can't provide you with some fact packet, but since you're worried about whethe
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 28 2017, @05:41PM
I disagree. Facts really don't matter. There are so many cognitive failures in the human mind - like filtering where contradictory facts are simply demphasized, and there is also this funny effect where people acknowledge that the foundation of a chain of logic is in error but still retain their belief in the conclusion. Its like once the conclusion is made it stands on its own. Maybe because reasoning it all through again is a lot of mental effort, so people in general just keep track of the conclusions but not how they got there as a sort of mental shortcut.
If you want to change minds there are two ways - get the hater to see themselves in the position of the hated. [npr.org] The old "walk a mile in another man's shoes" thing. The other method is for someone they look up to tell them changing their mind is a good idea. That one is harder, but its rare for everyone that someone admires to be in exact lockstep so sometimes you can find records of one expressing an opinion that contradicts all the others.
To paraphrase, Jonathan Swift, "You can't reason a man out of a position he never reasoned himself into."
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Monday February 27 2017, @09:46PM
Found your problem: "How do you know that your evidence is factual?"
Cross referencing, research, critical thinking. You have to apply these, develop an arsenal of well documented facts. Reports from actual organizations that deal with whatever topic, quotes from politicians / legislation proposals (for the "taking our guns" stuff). But most importantly, you have to remove your own emotions. As soon as you get the tiniest bit upset you start the emotional cascade which shuts down all reasonable discussion. So, they'll spout nonsense and you have to respond with facts. You also must understand that the shit you hate is done by the democrats as well, so conservatives have legitimate complaints too. You must acknowledge and not dismiss those complaints.
If you really care, then document the process, write down all the lies you got them to see, etc. etc. I don't have any go-to documents prepared so I can't provide you with some fact packet, but since you're worried about whether you can even trust anything then I recommend you start with fixing that to your own satisfaction. It should be the people vs. the gov, not people vs. people.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Monday February 27 2017, @12:39PM
People are turned away all the time. Hell, America alone has something like 50 million people who have had a DUI sometime in their life, which alone means they would be ineligible to enter Canada. I would not be surprised if half of Americas would not meet muster if they were interviewed by a Canadian border guard.