Corrupt Border Control

Subduction Zone said:

How does that make a difference?

Click to expand...

If they had actually tried to enter at a port of entry, got refused, then went and deliberately crossed the border somewhere else, then the reports would be saying that the entire carload of people were refused. This tells me that they were denied entry on some previous trip an unknown amount of time before.

Subduction Zone said:

And last but not least, video of the crossing:

https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/crime/article236336838.html

Click to expand...

LOL..! That was so obviously blatant!

Subduction Zone said:

And last but not least, video of the crossing:

https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/crime/article236336838.html

Click to expand...

Wait... so the crossing was at night and you expected them to recognize those monuments - which can be spaced quite widely apart as it is - as marking the border?

I don't know about where you are, but out here, a white post along the roadside is typically a pipeline marker.

Landon Caeli said:

LOL..! That was so obviously blatant!

Click to expand...

Yep. They obviously deliberately crossed a ditch.

Now... what in that video denotes that it's the border?

9-10ths_Penguin said:

If they had actually tried to enter at a port of entry, got refused, then went and deliberately crossed the border somewhere else, then the reports would be saying that the entire carload of people were refused. This tells me that they were denied entry on some previous trip an unknown amount of time before.

Click to expand...

I disagree. The one couple knew that entry was refused. One does not forget something like that. Did you watch the video? It refutes their story.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

Yep. They obviously deliberately crossed a ditch.

Now... what in that video denotes that it's the border?

Click to expand...

the layout. The signs leading up to it. The occasional border markers.

You know this. Roads do not run parallel to each other for no reason.

They lied to the border patrol. The video shows that.

Subduction Zone said:

the layout. The signs leading up to it. The occasional border markers.

Click to expand...

Are these signs and markers in the video? I couldn't make any of these things out. Could you?

You know this. Roads do not run parallel to each other for no reason.

Click to expand...

Frontage road - Wikipedia

They lied to the border patrol. The video shows that.

Click to expand...

I don't see how you can say that. The video shows an animal go onto the road in front of them and then the car immediately turns off the road.

They certainly didn't swerve around it, but I've heard different paraphrases of their version of events - some say "swerved" and some just say "avoided" - so I have no idea which one reflects what they told CBP.

(Which, BTW, stands for Customs and Border Protection, not Canada Border Protection as you guessed earlier. CBP is the American agency; CBSA is the Canadian agency)

Shad said:

Roads made by government have signs but not all have guards or barriers. Roads in reserves may or may not have signs. So outside of driving on reserve, which isn't a public road, you have to be blind and have no feeling (ditch bump) to cross into the US from Canada.

Click to expand...

That's what I would expect. I don't see how these folks crossed an international border on a public road without knowing. Perhaps the reaction by border patrol was somewhat knee-jerk, but those guys are just following a protocol.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

Are these signs and markers in the video? I couldn't make any of these things out. Could you?



Frontage road - Wikipedia


I don't see how you can say that. The video shows an animal go onto the road in front of them and then the car immediately turns off the road.

They certainly didn't swerve around it, but I've heard different paraphrases of their version of events - some say "swerved" and some just say "avoided" - so I have no idea which one reflects what they told CBP.

(Which, BTW, stands for Customs and Border Protection, not Canada Border Protection as you guessed earlier. CBP is the American agency; CBSA is the Canadian agency)

Click to expand...

You can normally do so much better than this. You know that the video shows the illegal crossing only. That was all that it needed to show, well except that this was clearly planned. They almost immediately slowly crossed the road illegally. Second this is nothing like a frontage road. Where do you live? Anyone that lives in the U.S. and drives should know what a frontage road is.

As to the animal it was nowhere near them, or did you miss that too? In case you did not notice that was shot with a telescopic lens. That causes quite a bit of foreshortening.

And yes, I realized my error with CBT, but what you claimed was misleading. Their story was quite different from that of the crossers.

Subduction Zone said:

You can normally do so much better than this.

Click to expand...

Projecting a bit?

You know that the video shows the illegal crossing only. That was all that it needed to show, well except that this was clearly planned.

Click to expand...

It's not clear to me that they meant to cross the border. You seem either unwilling or unable to explain how you came to this conclusion.

The mere fact that you slap adjectives like "clear" and "obvious" on your assertion doesn't magically justify the claims you're making.

The border markers you mention are far apart and don't obviously denote the border unless you already know what they are or get up close to them. At night from a car driving by, they'd be virtually useless... and I can't even see any in the video. Can you?

They almost immediately slowly crossed the road illegally. Second this is nothing like a frontage road. Where do you live? Anyone that lives in the U.S. and drives should know what a frontage road is.

Click to expand...

I'm in southwestern Ontario. Our rural frontage roads tend to have at least a fence between the frontage road and the main road.

In any case, I brought up frontage roads because you seemed bewildered at the idea that two roads running in parallel close together could be anything other than an international border. Frontage roads are one example, but there are others.

BTW: you do realize that "anyone who lives in the US and drives" doesn't describe visitors from the UK, right?

Overall, the area where they crossed has a funky arrangement that doesn't exactly scream "international border" except to people familiar with the area, but visitors from overseas can't be expected to be familiar with the area.

As to the animal it was nowhere near them, or did you miss that too? In case you did not notice that was shot with a telescopic lens. That causes quite a bit of foreshortening.

Click to expand...

Oh, if they were reacting to the animal, then it would have been a complete over-reaction.

Even if they didn't realize where the border was, driving through the ditch was foolish and kinda ridiculous. I'm not trying to suggest that their actions were wise or appropriate.

Still, "unwise and inappropriate" is not the same as "deliberately crossing a border illegally."

And yes, I realized my error with CBT, but what you claimed was misleading. Their story was quite different from that of the crossers.

Click to expand...

CBP, not CBT.

What do you think I claimed?

I guess this is where ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it. Unfortunately. And they were caught.

People need to remember to use caution when traveling abroad, and to learn the rules, especially when traveling literally on the border like that. Maybe they shouldn't have gotten so close to begin with.

Ultimately, I think the message from this family, and the media, is to encourage the public to not enforce the laws of the borders. Downplaying their value, and discouraging their enforcement as pure political leverage.

Landon Caeli said:

I guess this is where ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it. Unfortunately. And they were caught.

People need to remember to use caution when traveling abroad, and to learn the rules, especially when traveling literally on the border like that. Maybe they shouldn't have gotten so close to begin with.

Click to expand...

Like I just said:

Still, "unwise and inappropriate" is not the same as "deliberately crossing a border illegally."

9-10ths_Penguin said:

Projecting a bit?


It's not clear to me that they meant to cross the border. You seem either unwilling or unable to explain how you came to this conclusion.

The mere fact that you slap adjectives like "clear" and "obvious" on your assertion doesn't magically justify the claims you're making.

The border markers you mention are far apart and don't obviously denote the border unless you already know what they are or get up close to them. At night from a car driving by, they'd be virtually useless... and I can't even see any in the video. Can you?


I'm in southwestern Ontario. Our rural frontage roads tend to have at least a fence between the frontage road and the main road.

In any case, I brought up frontage roads because you seemed bewildered at the idea that two roads running in parallel close together could be anything other than an international border. Frontage roads are one example, but there are others.

BTW: you do realize that "anyone who lives in the US and drives" doesn't describe visitors from the UK, right?

Overall, the area where they crossed has a funky arrangement that doesn't exactly scream "international border" except to people familiar with the area, but visitors from overseas can't be expected to be familiar with the area.


Oh, if they were reacting to the animal, then it would have been a complete over-reaction.

Even if they didn't realize where the border was, driving through the ditch was foolish and kinda ridiculous. I'm not trying to suggest that their actions were wise or appropriate.

Still, "unwise and inappropriate" is not the same as "deliberately crossing a border illegally."


CBP, not CBT.

What do you think I claimed?

Click to expand...

I am so disappointed in you over this. One should not let one's biases affect one's reasoning and that is what you have done here. At best it looks as if you are trolling, sadly that does not seem to be the case.

Typically, law enforcement will always assume the worst, and charge you with as much as possible... Then they let the courts work out the details.

...This is the way the system works in the U.S.

A little bit more info. As I pointed out the animal was too far away to have been a concern. Remember telephoto lenses foreshorten the field of view. Another source on this:

British family's illegal border crossing into Washington state no accident, feds say

Not only did they obviously plan the crossing where they did, notice the immediate crossing when they got on the road, and the animal far to far away to be a concern unless they had been going over 100 mph, but when arrested they had $16,000 dollars Canadian on them in cash. Another source said a few grams of cannabis, but since that is legal in both Washington State and Canada that is not a big concern. But an amount of cash that would get the attention of any legal crossing is a cause for concern:

British family's illegal border crossing into Washington state no accident, feds say

Lyndon said:

what an absolutely stupid response

Click to expand...

Why? You too have let your biases go wild here. You might as well be a Trumpette.

Lyndon said:

what an absolutely stupid response

Click to expand...

...I'm not sure I get your reasoning.

Subduction Zone said:

I am so disappointed in you over this.

Click to expand...

Becaude your failure to back up your assertions is my fault?

One should not let one's biases affect one's reasoning and that is what you have done here.

Click to expand...

The fact that I'm unwilling to jump to the sane conclusion as you is not bias.

At best it looks as if you are trolling, sadly that does not seem to be the case.

Click to expand...

It's not. I'm getting pretty frustrated with how you've behaved in this thread, though.

I assume you're sincere, but I get the sense you aren't acknowledging - and more importantly, aren't questioning - your implicit assumptions.

Try this as an exercise: assume for argument's sake that they crossed the border inadvertently. Then, take everything you know - not just believe, but actually know - about what happened. Finally, construct a narrative that takes all this into account. You do not need to assume that they're particularly rational or wise.

Is there any fact that absolutely cannot be reconciled with the assumption that they crossed the border inadvertently?

9-10ths_Penguin said:

Wait... so the crossing was at night and you expected them to recognize those monuments - which can be spaced quite widely apart as it is - as marking the border?

I don't know about where you are, but out here, a white post along the roadside is typically a pipeline marker.

Click to expand...

Actually they were not on the road long enough to see them. But the sign that I showed would have shown up at night.

Grasping at straws is not a good sign. Admit to your failure with the "frontage road" and we can get somewhere. Please note when I was shown to be wrong about my earlier claims I admitted that I was wrong. You have been repeatedly been shown to be wrong here and have not admitted one error. This is no a good sign.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

Becaude your failure to back up your assertions is my fault?


The fact that I'm unwilling to jump to the sane conclusion as you is not bias.


It's not. I'm getting pretty frustrated with how you've behaved in this thread, though.

I assume you're sincere, but I get the sense you aren't acknowledging - and more importantly, aren't questioning - your implicit assumptions.

Try this as an exercise: assume for argument's sake that they crossed the border inadvertently. Then, take everything you know - not just believe, but actually know - about what happened. Finally, construct a narrative that takes all this into account. You do not need to assume that they're particularly rational or wise.

Is there any fact that absolutely cannot be reconciled with the assumption that they crossed the border inadvertently?

Click to expand...

Please don't lie. You are normally better than that. I supported my claims. You supported one claim a long time ago and gave up after that.