British family detained after 'accidentally' crossing the US border

The family claim they have been mistreated in detention and have been subjected to "frigid" temperatures.

A British family have been detained after they accidentally crossed into the US while trying to avoid hitting an animal on the road.

David Connors, 30, his wife Eileen, 24, and their three-month-old son claim they took a wrong turn as they were driving across the US-Canada border near Vancouver during a family holiday on 3 October.

They were pulled over and arrested by a police officer who said they had entered the US state of Washington.

The family insist they were unaware they had crossed the border.

Mr Connors' brother Michael, his wife Grace, and their two-year-old twin daughters are also believed to have been detained.

The family's lawyer said the Connors have been left "traumatised" by the ordeal and allege they have been mistreated while in detention.

The couple say they were initially separated after their arrest - David Connors was taken to a Washington detention centre, while Grace was placed in a hotel with her son.

All three were later flown to the Berks Family Residential Centre (BFRC) in Leesport, Pennsylvania, where they have been held since 5 October.

They say they have been kept in "frigid" temperatures in their cells and their three-month-old baby appears to have an eye infection and "rough and blotchy skin" due to the poor conditions.

Bridget Cambria, of Aldea - The People's Justice Centre, filed a complaint on behalf of the family with the US Department of Homeland Security.

According to the complaint, Mrs Connors said her son's formula was confiscated for three days at BRFC.

She says in the complaint: "When I ask 'How I am supposed to keep my baby warm in this horrible cold?', all they tell me is to put a hat on him.

"My baby can't wear a hat all the time, he feels uncomfortable with hats and mittens and starts to cry."

However a statement from US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) says video footage shows the family's car entering the US by "slowly and deliberately driving through a ditch".

"The seven occupants of the vehicle, who are citizens of the United Kingdom, were arrested at approximately 9.13pm, in accordance with law as established by the Immigration and Nationality Act for illegally entering the United States without inspection," it said.

CBP claimed record checks showed two of the adults were previously denied authorisation to enter the United States.

It added: "Attempts were made to return the individuals to Canada, however, Canada refused to allow their return and two attempts to contact the consulate for the United Kingdom were unsuccessful."

The Foreign Office has confirmed the family are being held and says it is working with US authorities.


https://news.sky.com/story/british-family-detained-after-accidentally-crossing-the-us-border-11836492

Why didn't Canada have them back if they were legally there as tourists? Is there no one in at the British Consulate?

"...a statement from US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) says video footage shows the family's car entering the US by "slowly and deliberately driving through a ditch..."


And...


"...record checks showed two of the adults were previously denied authorisation to enter the United States..."

Vintage wrote:Why didn't Canada have them back if they were legally there as tourists? Is there no one in at the British Consulate?

Sounds like maybe they weren't there legally either.

I don't know the laws for Brits staying in Canada. Are their Visas only good for 6 months maybe? And if they were
denied entry to the US, they might be wanted for something, somewhere. It's not like Brits can't come to the US on vacation.

Maddog wrote:

Vintage wrote:Why didn't Canada have them back if they were legally there as tourists? Is there no one in at the British Consulate?

Sounds like maybe they weren't there legally either.

I don't know the laws for Brits staying in Canada. Are their Visas only good for 6 months maybe? And if they were
denied entry to the US, they might be wanted for something, somewhere. It's not like Brits can't come to the US on vacation.

My first thought was Drugs? Hate to be suspicious, but...

As well as possible drug trafficking...

Their behaviour is also somewhat reminiscent of Irish "travellers" moving around illegally, all around Canada, Oz, NZ and the USA, with all their scamming and thieving..

Many of them apparently also have British passports, even residency.

Can anybody morally or ethically justify denying any peaceful person the right to go wherever he or she pleases?

Ben Reilly wrote:Can anybody morally or ethically justify denying any peaceful person the right to go wherever he or she pleases?

Yes.

Ben Reilly wrote:Can anybody morally or ethically justify denying any peaceful person the right to go wherever he or she pleases?

At least you are being Universal on your views on this Ben.

I was interested to see the views, and see differences. Due to the fact this family was White English and not Latino or African for example
I guess some people racialize those stopped at the border and incarcerated dependent on their outrage then?
I mean the claim is the family is seperated and held for days. It seems clear the family tried to enter illegally,  but I dont see Many Dems being outraged about this?

Ben Reilly wrote:Can anybody morally or ethically justify denying any peaceful person the right to go wherever he or she pleases?
.

Yep...

A person could find themselves in all sorts of strife if they go wandering freely 'as they please' around some coal mines, power stations, army or airforce bases, farms or factories, around here...

As for international travel --  a couple of those Brits had been denied entry into theUS previously --  so there's obviously something in their backgrounds..

Ben Reilly wrote:Can anybody morally or ethically justify denying any peaceful person the right to go wherever he or she pleases?

Yes quite easily....

such a thing is ONLY possible if that "wandering person" is disbarred from receiving any help, money or otherwise, and from obtaining employment (unless they apply for settled status and intend to settle down) otherwise the inhabitants of a country would end up supporting a load of freeloaders with nothing to show for it.

Ben, if you go round spouting that nonsense in England you'll never be accepted !

I'm not talking about barring people from wandering onto private property, or into a minefield, etc. (though it could be argued that nobody has the right to protect someone from their own stupidity).

I'm not talking about a person's "right" to go somewhere and collect benefits or otherwise take from others.

I'm talking about the logical right that is free movement. It goes like this:

Since nobody is able to choose where they're born, they should have the right to choose where they live, so long as they're not a criminal. (Even then, they should be a "natural" criminal, i.e. someone who hurts or takes from others, not a victimless criminal like a drug user.)

And since nobody owns the planet, nobody owns the countries within it, and thus nobody has the right to tell anybody else where to stay or to go -- except, of course, as punishment for a crime.

I challenge anybody to refute that logic.

Rubbish !

Ben Reilly wrote:I'm not talking about barring people from wandering onto private property, or into a minefield, etc. (though it could be argued that nobody has the right to protect someone from their own stupidity).

I'm not talking about a person's "right" to go somewhere and collect benefits or otherwise take from others.

I'm talking about the logical right that is free movement. It goes like this:

Since nobody is able to choose where they're born, they should have the right to choose where they live, so long as they're not a criminal. (Even then, they should be a "natural" criminal, i.e. someone who hurts or takes from others, not a victimless criminal like a drug user.)

And since nobody owns the planet, nobody owns the countries within it, and thus nobody has the right to tell anybody else where to stay or to go -- except, of course, as punishment for a crime.

I challenge anybody to refute that logic.

1) Plenty of flawed arguments. For a start, you have straight away denied homosexuals in numereous countries. Being as its considered to be a crime in many countries. So straight away you have an uneven system based on the criminal justice system of a country

2) Yet we do have legal systems that provide ownership for land. Of course this can come into dispute in some regions, but land ownership is recognised internationally. So people have a right to vet people coming into their lands, and should be in a position to deny entry based on sound and reasonble laws

3) If the view was to allow anyone being able to go where they wanted to. Then its a no brainer if this was allowed, the vast majority of the poorest people in the world would flock to the richest countries. Failing to resolve the poverty levels in the countries where they are coming from and it would create massive problems to the richer countries dealing with the influx. Mainly with infrustructure, enough jobs etc.

4) Its why there is borders in place and that there is sensible border controls in many controls. Some are poor and some are good

5) So you do not have to own the planet when you legally do own portions of land and just as a neighbour can deny you entry where you live next door. The same principle applies to a nation

I would have thought a lot depends on the size of the country and the size of the population already in that country also the resources available, which is the reasoning of most ordinary people for immigrations laws. The best way out, as the world is currently, is to improve the lot of countries that have populations who think moving to a country with better opportunities is the answer, it can unfortunately make the country of your choice almost as bad as the one you left if you can't get a job and a home. There are people in the UK now Living in conditions that are disgusting 20 adults and some children in a terraced three bedroom house, I thought the days of overcrowding were over in this country and just building more and more houses isn't the answer especially if you happen to belong to a non human species. The UK countries and other that have a reasonable way of life, didn't land fully formed out of the sky, people had to fight, for the most part, literally to make things as they are and as others would like them to be where they are. I wish we could accommodate people while keeping habitat for other species but its just not happening and I can't see it changing anytime soon. If the human population ever gets down to a reasonable level we will either be able to accommodate free movement easily from countries that are less desirable to live in or countries will be equitable
for all and people won't be forced to find something better, I doubt either will ever happen though unless human nature alters considerably.

Ben Reilly wrote:I'm not talking about barring people from wandering onto private property, or into a minefield, etc. (though it could be argued that nobody has the right to protect someone from their own stupidity).

I'm not talking about a person's "right" to go somewhere and collect benefits or otherwise take from others.

I'm talking about the logical right that is free movement. It goes like this:

Since nobody is able to choose where they're born, they should have the right to choose where they live, so long as they're not a criminal. (Even then, they should be a "natural" criminal, i.e. someone who hurts or takes from others, not a victimless criminal like a drug user.)

And since nobody owns the planet, nobody owns the countries within it, and thus nobody has the right to tell anybody else where to stay or to go -- except, of course, as punishment for a crime.

I challenge anybody to refute that logic.

Free movement is logical.

So is determining who enters the boundaries of your country.

Countries are organized into groups called citizens. A tribe if you like. All tribes get to decide who is allowed to be a member. Now some tribes have pretty silly rules and restrictions in my opinion. But those restrictions are not immoral.

What would be immoral would be for a country to tell someone they can't leave, and live in another country that wants them. That's a form of slavery.

Well said Vintage, you can't get a quart in a pint pot !

Ah yes, that's the phrase I wanted Nicko, couldn't remember the quantities.

So far only Maddog has come close to a good answer, and all he's done is provide a counterpoint, not actually proven me wrong.

Nobody has shown all human beings aren't born with a natural right to move freely.

Ben Reilly wrote:So far only Maddog has come close to a good answer, and all he's done is provide a counterpoint, not actually proven me wrong.

Nobody has shown all human beings aren't born with a natural right to move freely.

Humans have a natural right to form collectives and make rules about joining them.

You can expand the concept of natural rights to include all sorts of things.

Do I have a natural right to refuse to pay taxes to the tribe I live amongst?

Maddog wrote:Do I have a natural right to refuse to pay taxes to the tribe I live amongst?

You should have, but then you'd have to refrain from using any public good like police protection, public roads, etc.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:Do I have a natural right to refuse to pay taxes to the tribe I live amongst?

You should have, but then you'd have to refrain from using any public good like police protection, public roads, etc.

You would be gaining a benefit by their very existence.

So you're saying folks should be able to travel freely, and live where they like, and contribute nothing towards their government, if they don't want to.

You're becoming an anarchist.

Can We carry AR-15's while we wander around the globe, paying zero taxes anywhere we alight?

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:Do I have a natural right to refuse to pay taxes to the tribe I live amongst?

You should have, but then you'd have to refrain from using any public good like police protection, public roads, etc.

You would be gaining a benefit by their very existence.

So you're saying folks should be able to travel freely, and live where they like, and contribute nothing towards their government, if they don't want to.

You're becoming an anarchist.

Can We carry AR-15's while we wander around the globe, paying zero taxes anywhere we alight?

Speaking in very idealistic terms, yes. You should be able to carry a damn bazooka. But if you used it in anything other than self-defense, you should have it confiscated and your ass deported.

Please don't mistake me -- I see collection of taxes, banning of certain weapons, etc. as a curtailing of basic human freedoms. I just agree with some curtailing of freedoms because I can see the logic behind them.

I can see the logic behind curtailing the right to move freely, of course. I just think most countries curtail that freedom far too drastically.

Maddog is right people have the right to free movement and it happened, you could leave your tribe, join another, if they'd have you or you and some family or friends could branch out move to another area and start a new tribe, today its not so easy to do, most places are already taken and have too many people anyway, how would the economics work, how would the welfare. If you say everyone should be free to live in any country should that also go for moving into any house they fancy? Isn't collectively owning your hunting/living area, your country when it forms or your family owning your house just the same things so would you be happy to come back from the shops one day to find someone moved into your house because it was better than theirs or they just fancied it? Where does 'the right to' end in a society before conditions are attached. Even other species have terms and conditions on who joins their clan/herd/pride/territory.

It's eurocentric to attach emphasis on property. The plains Indians had no notion of territorial ownership; it was all in the now, and place was just another concept for environment or surroundings.

Original Quill wrote:It's eurocentric to attach emphasis on property.  The plains Indians had no notion of territorial ownership; it was all in the now, and place was just another concept for environment or surroundings.

##
Really, so they had no ancestral territories or hunting grounds that they fought to retain from other tribes, that's not what they said/say, why bother with treaties then.
As for Eurocentric that just your prejudice and racism showing, the south American empires and city states were as territorial as anyone as you well know.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You would be gaining a benefit by their very existence.

So you're saying folks should be able to travel freely, and live where they like, and contribute nothing towards their government, if they don't want to.

You're becoming an anarchist.

Can We carry AR-15's while we wander around the globe, paying zero taxes anywhere we alight?

Speaking in very idealistic terms, yes. You should be able to carry a damn bazooka. But if you used it in anything other than self-defense, you should have it confiscated and your ass deported.

Please don't mistake me -- I see collection of taxes, banning of certain weapons, etc. as a curtailing of basic human freedoms. I just agree with some curtailing of freedoms because I can see the logic behind them.

I can see the logic behind curtailing the right to move freely, of course. I just think most countries curtail that freedom far too drastically.

Yes they do. That came about with the expansion of the welfare state.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You would be gaining a benefit by their very existence.

So you're saying folks should be able to travel freely, and live where they like, and contribute nothing towards their government, if they don't want to.

You're becoming an anarchist.

Can We carry AR-15's while we wander around the globe, paying zero taxes anywhere we alight?

Speaking in very idealistic terms, yes. You should be able to carry a damn bazooka. But if you used it in anything other than self-defense, you should have it confiscated and your ass deported.

Please don't mistake me -- I see collection of taxes, banning of certain weapons, etc. as a curtailing of basic human freedoms. I just agree with some curtailing of freedoms because I can see the logic behind them.

I can see the logic behind curtailing the right to move freely, of course. I just think most countries curtail that freedom far too drastically.

Yes they do.  That came about with the expansion of the welfare state.  

That came about with the "War on Terror," really.

Vintage wrote:

Original Quill wrote:It's eurocentric to attach emphasis on property.  The plains Indians had no notion of territorial ownership; it was all in the now, and place was just another concept for environment or surroundings.

##
Really, so they had no ancestral territories or hunting grounds that they fought to retain from other tribes, that's not what they said/say, why bother with treaties then.
As for Eurocentric that just your prejudice and racism showing, the south American empires and city states were as territorial as anyone as you well know.  

No, the Indians didn't even have a concept of property ownership. For them, land was rather like our own approach to air. It's there, and we use it as needed.

Treaties and reservations were a European invention, again derived from European notions of estates. As for South America, both it's language and its' culture are eurocentric...rather like North America, only it is Portuguese and Spanish, instead of English and French.

You have such a downer attitude about Europe. Not everything that is eurocentric is necessarily bad. It just is, that's all. Lands became important as feudalism spread. Earls and Counts came about as holders of keeps and castles, for defense against invasion purposes. As such, European culture grew up around laws of property, ownership and possession.

It's not bad. It is just the culture.

Ben Reilly wrote:So far only Maddog has come close to a good answer, and all he's done is provide a counterpoint, not actually proven me wrong.

Nobody has shown all human beings aren't born with a natural right to move freely.

Oh I see and you are the authority to say so?

So little point in debating someone so arrogant they think their view is only right and others are not valid except one poster.

wow

You made flaws in your own views around criminality yourself but hey ho, I cannot be bothered when someone already thinks their view is right even when its poorly flawed their own reasoning

Enjoy talking to yourself on this

Vintage wrote:

Original Quill wrote:It's eurocentric to attach emphasis on property.  The plains Indians had no notion of territorial ownership; it was all in the now, and place was just another concept for environment or surroundings.

##
Really, so they had no ancestral territories or hunting grounds that they fought to retain from other tribes, that's not what they said/say, why bother with treaties then.
As for Eurocentric that just your prejudice and racism showing, the south American empires and city states were as territorial as anyone as you well know.  

You are correct Vintage

https://prezi.com/wiptiybog-48/inca-land-ownership/

https://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/aztec-and-maya-law/aztec-property-law

First known written treay in history was the treaty of Kadesh. Thus North Africa

Just a few examples and there was plenty more and showing again Quill is the worst when it comes to revisionist history

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Speaking in very idealistic terms, yes. You should be able to carry a damn bazooka. But if you used it in anything other than self-defense, you should have it confiscated and your ass deported.

Please don't mistake me -- I see collection of taxes, banning of certain weapons, etc. as a curtailing of basic human freedoms. I just agree with some curtailing of freedoms because I can see the logic behind them.

I can see the logic behind curtailing the right to move freely, of course. I just think most countries curtail that freedom far too drastically.

Yes they do.  That came about with the expansion of the welfare state.  
..

".. the expansion of the welfare state."

What a load of ignorant, uneducated and unthinking meaningless drivel..

Many countries still have very little of that "welfare", yet far less "freedoms" at the same time.

Oh and the view to be born with a right to move freely is complete bollocks also. Rights are given to people, just as they are and has been the case throughout the animal kingdom through time. Nobody is born free to move where they please to. That requires permission. If you do not believe me, then simple look at thw animal kingdom. Many species are territorial and mark out their territory. Where even animals of their own species will be attacked in they enter another groups territory. Now what the arrogant Ben fails to understand is that rights are a human social construct and not a given. It is humans that have made for humans to rights over all the other animal spcies on this planet. Again showing the arrogance of humans and more so in Ben's argument that Humans are some how born with this special right.

No they are not, the right is given to humans. As without the creation of these rights and civilisation. Humans would be born facing boundaries of territorial groups. Where again you would not be allowed to enter without permission.

Just another of the failings of Ben's argument, in that he has failed to show it is even a right and why only to humans?

Laters

The Maya, Inca, Toltec, Olmec and all the others spoke Spanish and Portuguese? that must have surprised the later European 'discoverers'.

Begs the question, was the rise of the British Empire a correct decision, or is it hypocritical in today's society?

+1 didge !

Well Didge just showed his fascist side. Rights like free movement and free speech are inalienable. Meaning they're yours from birth, not that they're given to you.

Think about it. Free speech, free movement, free worship... all these freedoms derive from freedom of thought.

Who the hell can give anyone freedom of thought?

It's impossible to give and nearly as impossible to take away.

The Arctic tern migrates from Greenland to Antarctica and back every year. Now there's a bird that must have a lot of stamps on its passport

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Speaking in very idealistic terms, yes. You should be able to carry a damn bazooka. But if you used it in anything other than self-defense, you should have it confiscated and your ass deported.

Please don't mistake me -- I see collection of taxes, banning of certain weapons, etc. as a curtailing of basic human freedoms. I just agree with some curtailing of freedoms because I can see the logic behind them.

I can see the logic behind curtailing the right to move freely, of course. I just think most countries curtail that freedom far too drastically.

Yes they do.  That came about with the expansion of the welfare state.  

Welfare is not a dirty word, Maddog.  It exists quite simply because it is necessary - VERY necessary!
Pity that in some political circles, the word is hissed out with contempt.

Ben Reilly wrote:Well Didge just showed his fascist side. Rights like free movement and free speech are inalienable. Meaning they're yours from birth, not that they're given to you.

Think about it. Free speech, free movement, free worship... all these freedoms derive from freedom of thought.

Who the hell can give anyone freedom of thought?

It's impossible to give and nearly as impossible to take away.

\i think that bloke over there with a machine gun would beg to differ.......

Jules wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yes they do.  That came about with the expansion of the welfare state.  

Welfare is not a dirty word, Maddog.  It exists quite simply because it is necessary - VERY necessary!
Pity that in some political circles, the word is hissed out with contempt.

Did I call it a dirty word?

It has a consequences and costs. One of them is more stringent controls about who gets to stay in a particular country.

When costs are collectivised, so is behavior.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yes they do.  That came about with the expansion of the welfare state.  

That came about with the "War on Terror," really.

No, not really. Countries have been deciding who gets to live in them for centuries.

And they have been looking at the cost/benefit of certain immigrants for multiple decades.

You aren't in Ft Worth right now because of the war on terror.

Vintage wrote:The Maya, Inca, Toltec, Olmec and all the others spoke Spanish and Portuguese? that must have surprised the later European 'discoverers'.

Apparently you lost the plot, far, far back.  We were talking about European influence on modern civic organizations in the Americas. The civilizations you raise were not European.

Ben Reilly wrote:Well Didge just showed his fascist side. Rights like free movement and free speech are inalienable. Meaning they're yours from birth, not that they're given to you.

Think about it. Free speech, free movement, free worship... all these freedoms derive from freedom of thought.

Who the hell can give anyone freedom of thought?

It's impossible to give and nearly as impossible to take away.

Oh dear, so when I easily show up your really immature argument you say my fascist side. Seriously grow the fuck up

Free speech and freedom of movement are again rights that are given. You are not born to them
As again some people are not born into a nation with free speech
Hence the point went over your head
I am not against people having rights, but your belief they are  inalienable. When already free speech is being eroded shows how out of touch with reality you are. We do not have free speech in any society in reality as there has always been consquences for certain speech.
Hence Free speech is not a  inalienable right
Like I said rights are given and I am glad we do have many rights, but that does not mean someone has an inalienable right to move where they want to. As for example you would not then want 100 people camped in your garden
Hence we have restrictions on this/
I have always been happy for people to follow their dreams and move where they want to, but it has to be by conscent by the nation in agreement for you to move there.

The point you miss is that rights are given,not born into as laws can and do change and for one we are constantly seeing Free speech being constantly curtailed and denied. Which often comes from the Far right and left.

The reality is there is an evolutionary nature, being that humans are animals that they will be territorial. The point you glaringly miss

Vintage wrote:

Original Quill wrote:It's eurocentric to attach emphasis on property.  The plains Indians had no notion of territorial ownership; it was all in the now, and place was just another concept for environment or surroundings.

##
Really, so they had no ancestral territories or hunting grounds that they fought to retain from other tribes, that's not what they said/say, why bother with treaties then.
As for Eurocentric that just your prejudice and racism showing, the south American empires and city states were as territorial as anyone as you well know.  

.

More idiotic drivel...

Show us the evidence for your ignorant and arrogant Eurocentric lies, Vintage..

The American Plains Indians, the Innuit of Canada and Alaska, and Australian Aboriginals all had a different take on it to your insipid bulldust  --  their traditions state that the land doesn't "belong" to them, but that they belong to the land. 

"The Earth doesn't belong to us;  we belong to the Earth."
Aldo Leopold

https://youtu.be/w0sWIVR1hXw

http://www.nativecircle.com/wisdom.html

'Wolfie wrote:

Vintage wrote:
##
Really, so they had no ancestral territories or hunting grounds that they fought to retain from other tribes, that's not what they said/say, why bother with treaties then.
As for Eurocentric that just your prejudice and racism showing, the south American empires and city states were as territorial as anyone as you well know.  

.

More idiotic drivel...

Show us the evidence for your ignorant and arrogant Eurocentric lies, Vintage..

The American Plains Indians, the Innuit of Canada and Alaska, and Australian Aboriginals all had a different take on it to your insipid bulldust  --  their traditions state that the land doesn't "belong" to them, but that they belong to the land. 

"The Earth doesn't belong to us;  we belong to the Earth."
Aldo Leopold

https://youtu.be/w0sWIVR1hXw

She is not lying about the South American city states and empires
Ever heard of the Inca, Maya, Olmec, Aztec etc?
I gave the links to how they formed land ownership

And Wolfie gives us a post that shows why the Ladies left this Forum, what a Pillock !

I'm not sure why they are called the'right' wing, when they are invariably wrong.
Raggs and Syl left after their spat with Eddie,.
So yet another instance where the right wing are also the wrong wing.