I'm the Canadian who was detained by ICE for two weeks

Every country is like this. Israel is the scariest but I remember decades ago crossing into Switzerland by train and in the middle of the night being woken up by border guards with barking German shepherds asking for my passport. I have so many stories it’s funny. On top of the other stories I’ve already posted, my friend who is Canadian drove into Buffalo for dinner and on his way back, they asked him where are you going. He answered “Canada” and they detained him and pulled apart his car looking for drugs. He was detained for hours until they let him go.

"Switzerland by train and in the middle of the night being woken up by border guards with barking German shepherds asking for my passport"

What is exactly wrong here? They checked your passport and went on their way, that is how it works.

Nothing wrong. The previous poster claimed that the US Border patrol was excessively scary but my point is this happens everywhere around the world.

There's a wide spectrum between being aggressive about asking for your passport and detention for weeks. While it's a slippery slope the extent to which it happens, and the extent to which prejudice is involved, varies a lot.

It was hilarious seeing the difference between the French and Swiss border guards on train rides.

French: laughing and talking, checking everyone's passports

Swiss: eyes scanning the car, papers please

Are you suggesting that Swiss border patrol would have been more forgiving if I were illegally entering their country?

The part OP is scared of and points to is some border guard revoking your visa, which probably implies you losing your job and having to leave the country you live in. This is scary because it is a very big, bad outcome to be totally in the authority of a random border guard to decide. Waking out by guards and dogs barking on a train is scary in its own right the moment it happens, but we are talking about totally different things whose only intersection is "border guards" and the emotional category of "scared".

They detained her for 2 weeks, while the lights where always on. I think that is a bit more then aggressively asking for papers.

As a Canadian living near the border (as many Canadians are!), I would often drive into the US for shopping. There are a number of towns that seem dedicated to serving Canadians, like Watertown, NY. I've found that often the US border guards would be much nicer than the Canadian border guards, probably because the Canadians are the ones that need to deal with the customs rules (Canadians aren't trying to smuggle their new purchases back to the US without paying tax!).

I haven't been on a shopping trip like that in a while though, and I find it hard to believe I'll ever do it again now. I feel bad for Watertown, but with the tariffs and the risk of detention, its not worth it.

I did not say it cannot be revoked or it does not happen anywhere else, I said it is scary for completely different reasons than waking up in a train to a border guard checking your passport. Moreover, both can in principle happen anywhere, but the extent and context of them actually happening also matters.

It's not nonsense, people are following all the rules and then having some thug with no ability or willingness to understand the situation revoke their visa. This can and will ruin lives I don't see how you're not seeing the problem here

Which other countries force visitors through full immigration processing even if they're only in transit?

Well, she wasn't illegally entering the United States, so that's sort of moot.

It is you that actually has to answer on which rules were broken and which countries do the same. Tbf asking questions to be answered by non-examples is disingenuous. If your argument (2) is that others do it, then you should provide concrete examples similar to the original article. If your argument (1) is that they did not follow some rules, you should either provide specific rules that the author did not follow, or at very least plausible reasons for why they are lying in the article about following all the rules.

Canada is at the top of my mind. You need to get a visa and go through the "full immigration processing" even if you are only transiting through and not leaving the airport.

She was. You didn't even do a modicum of research. She co-founded a hemp drink company in California and then self-assigned her own TN visa through the company she founded, which isn't allowed. Her visa was actually illegal and then she was found upon subsequent crossing. She tried to reapply and this time she was detained.

don't forget a sub-70 cent dollar. Pretty rough to pay that sort of premium and THEN maybe GST and duty on your purchases. It's not the same as a generation ago when you had to go to the US to get their chocolate bars...

She tried to enter the country illegally and illegally apply for a work visa.

1) She co-founded a hemp drink company in California as a Canadian.

"Jasmine Mooney, an actor who is also co-founder of the beverage brand Holy! Water, was detained on 3 March in San Diego, California."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/18/canadian-act...

2) She applied for a TN visa that was sponsored by her own company, which is illegal.

"I was granted my trade Nafta work visa, which allows Canadian and Mexican citizens to work in the US in specific professional occupations, on my second attempt."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/19/canadian-det...

3) She self-sponsored her own TN visa through her company that she co-founded and this is illegal.

Visa Sponsorship Required

Contrary to popular belief, the TN visa classification does require an employer to “sponsor” an individual for TN visa work status.

The TN visa classification, unlike e.g. the E-2 visa, does not permit self-sponsorship.

https://www.bdzlaw.com/nafta-tn-blog/tn-visa-employer-obliga...

4) She was trying to enter the US illegally with an illegal work visa and even though the first TN was granted, she was likely detained because of the illegal nature of her TN visa application and the multiple attempts she made.

Everything ICE and CBP did was lawful.

I need to determine if this is true. I had not heard of it before, and the idea she would qualify for a TN visa seemed a little thin, but the rules are so arbitrary and uneven (especially these days) who knows. Regardless this sounds like a nightmare, and to top it off is neither "DOGE-efficient" or increases US security. It's a least 4-combinations of lose-lose.

Why do you need guard dogs to check a passport? Is it the most effective system to do sweep-checks in the middle of the night? Why not check as you're boarding or de-training? What happens if something is wrong or not aligned? Is a stressful situation the best way to conduct routine processes for anybody?

HOW shit goes down is really important. When systems reduce people to cogs in a machine they lose empathy and personal responsibility. This is why we end up with guards who know nothing, treat people like cattle, and are "just doing their job". It does not lead to good results.

Sorry, I’m commenting on an article and don’t feel as though I should need more research than what’s written in it. Based on her account, that’s not really accurate, and I do actually trust her (and Guardian fact-checkers) more than your anonymous claims. Feel free to give sources.

Anyway: it’s still moot. What she did, even based on your account, is not illegal.

It’s not illegal to apply for TN, period. If the application is rejected, that doesn’t make the application retroactively illegal.

It’s not even illegal for a Canadian to apply for a TN at the border crossing, have their application rejected, and keep driving right into the US. I know this because it happened to me. As Canadians don’t need work permits to enter the US, entering the country wasn’t the question - only working in it.

Unless she’d previously been given paperwork that had banned her from entry to the US - and she hadn’t been - there was nothing illegal with reapplying. She was told to reapply.

Whether she did anything “wrong” is debatable, but whether she did anything illegal isn’t.

See my other reply, with receipts:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43413758

The Walmarts and gas stations near the Northern NY border used to have a lot of Ontario and Quebec plates. I've seen reports that February traffic across the bridges was down ~15% in February YoY.

I have the best story on this - they didn't believe I wasn't Swiss, because my name is clearly Swiss and I was speaking German. My (American) passport had been amended so it took an hour and them making some calls before they were convinced I wasn't some kind of spy. Love the idea of my ancestral home not believing I wasn't one of them, even if they were quite rude about it.

That's an interesting anecdote. I grew up on a border town, but as a US Citizen often going up into Cananda. Without fail it was always the US border guards who were the jerks (I went to school with their kids!) and the Canadian guards who were gracious and courteous.

Given that I've NEVER had what I would call a great interaction with a US border guard, it warms my heart to hear that at least they could be kind to some one ;-)

This has been my experience as well (as a US citizen). I've crossed the US/Canadian border many times and the US guards are usually the jerks. I always dread re-entry into the US because of that.

Hmm, I'm not an American so this is all new and pretty interesting. If you wholly or partly own a company and the company sponsors your TN, would that be OK? Or is that still 'self-sponsorship' under the regulations?

Did you look up Section 214.6(b) [0] before you posted?

Curious how you determined

>> A professional will be deemed to be self-employed if he or she will be rendering services to a corporation or entity of which the professional is the sole or controlling shareholder or owner.

Do you have a link to the ownership structure of Holy! Water?

[0] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2012-title8-vol1/pdf...

Drug drogs I suspect.

>>Everything ICE and CBP did was lawful.

That may be true but it's a pretty much a low bar....why the detention for 2 weeks? Why was she not allowed to fly home? Is cruelty the point?

Canadian here. I recall in 1991 being woken by Swiss border guards in a train carriage full of Germans and Italians. After inspecting their passports they shined the light in my face. They saw my maple leaf on my bag and asked “Est-tu Canadian” bleary eyed I replied “oui” and they said,”it’s fine, we don’t need to see your passport”. Of course 9 years later I was thrown off a train to Czechoslovakia” because they changed the visa requirements at the last minute and my “Let’s Go” guidebook was out of date.

Oh being young, stupid and crossing boarders without a clue.

Along with all of these Musk/Trump regime's antics, the cruelty is merely a feature, not a bug.

Even if that were true it doesn't justify it.

TN self sponsorship is not allowed. However, it's not immediately clear to me that she would meet the standard of self-sponsorship as laid out in the law:

>> A professional will be deemed to be self-employed if he or she will be rendering services to a corporation or entity of which the professional is the sole or controlling shareholder or owner. [0]

I did quite a bit of digging to see if I could find corporate entity filings that might indicate if she is a sole or controlling shareholder. My initial findings suggest that she's not, but with low confidence.

Her product's site lists a mailing address in Illinois. I noticed the first line was "My Crew Doses"[1] (side note: lol - I guess this is a pun and a double entendre for "microdoses" but also "my friends dose"). I checked the Illinois register of corporations for that entity but came up short. I noticed the email listed on the contact page was "jeremy@enjoyholywater" and searched for 'Jeremy Holy Water' and came up with this guy [2] who lists himself as "Chief Scientific Officer" and a Co-founder of Holy! Water. I noticed he's in Colorado and checked the Colorado corporate register and bingo, came up with this: The corporate entity for My Crew Doses[3]. Not much info there but it lists the home registration of the entity as Wyoming. Going to the Wyoming register, we find the listing: [4]. That lists "Brian Mccaslin" as the sole corporate officer (President) with an @enjoyholywater.com email address. Cross-referencing his LinkedIn, it seems to be this guy: [5]. He also seems to go by BJ.

Now, assuming that this is the corporate entity for Holy! Water, I find it highly doubtful that the subject of the article is a controlling shareholder. We don't know what the ownership breakdown is but the fact that she isn't even listed as a corporate officer or a director is to me a strong indication that she isn't a majority shareholder. My hunch is that she in fact would be eligible (or at least not disqualified under this rule) for a TN visa.

[0] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2012-title8-vol1/pdf... [1]https://enjoyholywater.com/policies/contact-information [2] https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeremywidmann/ [3] https://www.sos.state.co.us/biz/BusinessEntityDetail.do?quit... [4] https://wyobiz.wyo.gov/business/FilingDetails.aspx?eFNum=035... [5]https://www.linkedin.com/in/bjmccaslin/

TN visa requires a legitimate employer-employee relationship. If she is a co-founder of the company, which she has advertised herself as being, then the TN visa is illegal. Add on the fact she tried 3 times in various borders is more than enough evidence to detain her for immigration fraud.

Do I think it's right? No.

But is it lawful? 100% yes. I've seen draconian behavior at the border so I'm completely familiar with how things are so I'm not surprised.

I must have missed the ownership table in that video.

How much of the company does she own?

She has publicly stated she is a cofounder of the company. In order to qualify for the TN visa there has to be a legitimate employer-employee relationship, and as cofounder, that makes that impossible. At the very least this makes her subject to detainment for possible immigration fraud.

Founders/cofounders are generally legally and legitimately employees of the firms they were involved in founding.

Yes, if she was the sole or controlling owner, this would be an issue. But “cofounder” and “sole owner” are... not the same thing.

This is well established. You can argue all you want but you're wrong.

Was she accused of these things by ICE? Was she told which laws she allegedly broke? Was she being detained ahead of a trial? I don't understand how even allegedly illegal activity results in her indefinite detention without anyone telling her anything.

Scary can be an effective deterrent against unsavory adversaries.

Of course, it's kind of the point of having borders and control, if they let anyone in without verifying, it's not even worth having a border.

Going from France to UK is like that, and before Shenzen, it was like that from EU country to EU country. When I was young, we had to wait for 2 hours with my parents while they checked everything was in order for a Spain border crossing (we were in a big RV so it makes sense).

People on HN have very soft views of the world, being too idealistic libertarian or some sort of socialist derived ideology. Most people may not be criminal but you have to process everyone crossing the border as if because otherwise it's pointless and you will never catch the criminals...

I was getting suspicious the more I read. When she said the guard though she was shady, I knew something definitely was up.

Guards/cops/whatever maybe be dumb sometime but they don't say this when everything is done correctly. If she had just made an honest mistake, she would have been told so and corrected. But clearly, she tried to do something that wasn't allowed or played with the lines on how things have to be done. Then she complains that she got detained for it. If you don't respect the rules, there are consequences, women tend to forget it because they get away with all kind of shit in today's society.

Also, The Guardian has a habit of obfuscating the truth (by omitting facts or orienting the narrative) to create outrage, so it doesn't surprise me at all.