Feds Fine Man $10,000 for Going to Church

NewsMax ^ | Feb. 10, 2004 | Carl Limbacher

[Barnacle]

Ineffingcredible!

[Iron Matron]

Give me a break. This 52 year old man was going to Church. This can't be one of those dumb-a$$ed no exception policies.


OK, OK,! But only on the Canadian border. Mexico must be closed up!

[Johnny_Cipher]

We're talking 3000+ miles of frontier, much of which is sparsely populated. People come and go as they please.

So he's just driving across on a road with apparently no gate or sign that he's driving into Canada? If that's true, then how was he busted for "doing the deed" in the first place? How did anybody know about it?

[Johnny_Cipher]

Interesting article - thanks for the link. It makes it much more clear about what actually happened than the Newsmax article does.

[henderson field]

Aren't these officials violating the First Amendment of the Consitution, the one on religion? What are the names of these officials? Where is the ACLU on this issue?

[henderson field]

During hunting season, people cross and re-cross that border routinely out in the woods. Let's not get too anal, boys. Let's not pay attention to the wrong things. Is this supposed to atone for inviting arab terrorists in before 9/11 and ushering them to their seats in the 727 classroom? By the way, which of the terrorists was fined $10,000 for crossing the border?

[Johnny_Cipher]

Aren't these officials violating the First Amendment of the Consitution, the one on religion?

No. Would the First Amendment protect me if I stole a car to get to church or jimmied the church door in order to get in?

[Johnny_Cipher]

By the way, which of the terrorists was fined $10,000 for crossing the border?

There was no $10,000 fine before 9/11; the new border security measures weren't in place before 9/11. Your question is illogical.

[LizardQueen]

The Canadian border is pretty different - in most cases, the *locals* in the border towns on both sides have been pretty much free to come and go for years. It's been a tacit agreement, and for a long time in some of these places no one is real sure where the border even is. There's not the same trashing issue up here, not sure why - maybe since the 2 countries are more equal economically and socially there aren't the herds of illegals coming through.

I'm in favor of tight immigration, too, but the border security would be better served by chasing those who come into the country illegaly and keep going rather than harassing and fining the locals who've been wandering back and forth within a few miles of the line for years.

Half the roads don't even have guard posts on them, they just have a sign saying "if you're coming in please stop at the nearest Customs booth". It's on the honor system.

I remember coming back in once at a *manned* crossing (I live in Vermont) where the guards were fast asleep (this was pre-9/11). I stopped the car and waited. Then I waited more. Then I tapped the horn a few times. Nothing. So I got out and walked up to the building and rapped on the window. I looked in the window and both guys were tipped back in their chairs, snoozin. One finally woke up and came out, asked me a few cursory questions, then stumbled back into the building and I left.

LQ

[hopespringseternal]

There was no $10,000 fine before 9/11; the new border security measures weren't in place before 9/11. Your question is illogical.

You guys are a joke. Customs goes postal on some harmless old man and you get all orgasmic over it. Meanwhile, Customs routinely winks at illegal Muslims and Mexican criminals running drugs across the border. Catch a clue.

The quickest way to get in trouble in the southwest is to hinder one of those illegals in any way. But don't worry, Customs is diligently keeping WASPs out of the north.

[Iron Matron]

I'm in favor of tight immigration, too, but the border security would be better served by chasing those who come into the country illegaly and keep going rather than harassing and fining the locals who've been wandering back and forth within a few miles of the line for years.


Funny how my own situation skewed my viewpoint, you are, of course, right.

[PizzaDriver]

"He "said he has been crossing the U.S.-Canada border at his own discretion for more than 40 years. But border security has been tightened since last May when the Bureau of Customs eliminated its Form 1 program," the Associated Press reported today.

"That program allowed preapproved people to cross the border when certain border stations, including the one between Township 15 Range 15 and St. Pamphile, Quebec, were closed."

This looks like the unilaterail ending of an "Easement of Record". That's not legal. Nor is unilateral termination of an "Easement in Fact" legal.

He should win this one; with a "real estate lawyer".

[azhenfud]

The poor guy should have taken a lesson from the Bedside Baptists - stay home....

[Johnny_Cipher]

You guys are a joke.

What "guys" would that be?

Customs goes postal on some harmless old man and you get all orgasmic over it.

I assure you, all the relevant portions of my anatomy are quite calm right now, and have been since before I first saw this ridiculous story.

Meanwhile, Customs routinely winks at illegal Muslims and Mexican criminals running drugs across the border. Catch a clue.

What does that have to do with the original poster's absurd observation that the 9/11 hijackers weren't assessed a $10,000 fine for crossing the border BEFORE they did their nefarious deeds?

The quickest way to get in trouble in the southwest is to hinder one of those illegals in any way. But don't worry, Customs is diligently keeping WASPs out of the north.

Completely irrelevant to this issue. Canada is not Mexico, and one old man bypassing a roadblock and getting fined for it is not the "illegal immigration" problem. If you want to whine about Mexican illegal immigration, there are plenty of threads you can pollute to do so.

[Johnny_Cipher]

This looks like the unilateral ending of an "Easement of Record". That's not legal. Nor is unilateral termination of an "Easement in Fact" legal.

I was literally just thinking the very same thing. "Easement in Fact" is the reason that the management of some big hotel (I forget the name offhand but think it might be one of Donald Trump's properties) has to rope off one of its public areas for a few minutes every year. If they didn't, it would no longer be considered private property and would legally revert to public use.

[Oztrich Boy]

Mr Bush, tear down this wall!

[supercat]

Are we supposed to feel sorry for this guy? Maybe some sort of outrage on his behalf? I can't.

The nearest manned checkpoint was 200 miles away. Are you suggesting that this guy should have driven an extra 800 miles round trip to comply with regs in attending church?

Especially given the extremely eager level of enforcement?

If there were guards who would actually try to stop people crossing, that might arguably serve some reasonable national interest. But if someone is entering with nefarious intent, merely having a camera that shows that they did so is going to be absolutely useless for actually catching them. And if the government isn't going to go after bad people, why go after anyone?

[Mikey]

"merely having a camera that shows that they did so is going to be absolutely useless for actually catching them"

Its ridiculous. All this talk about national ID cards, smart cards, Implantable microchips, etc.

Yet the borders are wide open so someone w/o or with an evil intent can just waltz across the border unimpeded.
Forget the smart cards and all the Big brotherism communistic approaches, Check everyone coming into this country. Diplomat as well as farm worker. Get rid of this insane diplomatic immunity.

"And if the government isn't going to go after bad people, why go after anyone?"

Exactly.

[Djarum]

Can someone explain how millions of Mexicans can do this without being fined?