Most active commenters
  • blindriver(7)
  • ethbr1(3)
  • freehorse(3)

←back to thread

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

(www.theguardian.com)
1009 points n1b0m | 25 comments | 19 Mar 25 11:21 UTC | HN request time: 3.59s | source | bottom
Show context
snapcaster ◴[19 Mar 25 12:33 UTC] No.43411015[source]▶
This is horrible and scary, why border guards are even giving the authority to revoke visas is beyond me. When people think about giving cops/guards authority like this they need to be picturing the dumbest bully from their grade school. That's who is going to be using the power
replies(4): >>43411094 #>>43411158 #>>43413815 #>>43417507 #
blindriver ◴[19 Mar 25 12:49 UTC] No.43411158[source]▶
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.
replies(6): >>43411227 #>>43411281 #>>43411691 #>>43417653 #>>43450938 #>>43460984 #
1. ssijak ◴[19 Mar 25 12:53 UTC] No.43411227[source]▶
"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.

replies(3): >>43411274 #>>43411284 #>>43413852 #
2. blindriver ◴[19 Mar 25 12:57 UTC] No.43411274[source]▶
Nothing wrong. The previous poster claimed that the US Border patrol was excessively scary but my point is this happens everywhere around the world.
replies(3): >>43411443 #>>43411576 #>>43417838 #
3. ethbr1 ◴[19 Mar 25 12:58 UTC] No.43411284[source]▶
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

4. freehorse ◴[19 Mar 25 13:11 UTC] No.43411443[source]▶
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".
replies(1): >>43411563 #
5. Mashimo ◴[19 Mar 25 13:20 UTC] No.43411576[source]▶
They detained her for 2 weeks, while the lights where always on. I think that is a bit more then aggressively asking for papers.
6. freehorse ◴[19 Mar 25 13:46 UTC] No.43411919{4}[source]▶
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.
7. snapcaster ◴[19 Mar 25 14:27 UTC] No.43412465{4}[source]▶
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
replies(1): >>43412663 #
8. TheOtherHobbes ◴[19 Mar 25 15:02 UTC] No.43412939{6}[source]▶
Which other countries force visitors through full immigration processing even if they're only in transit?
replies(2): >>43413459 #>>43413563 #
9. freehorse ◴[19 Mar 25 15:37 UTC] No.43413440{6}[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>43413758 #
10. jimmydorry ◴[19 Mar 25 15:48 UTC] No.43413563{7}[source]▶
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.
11. blindriver ◴[19 Mar 25 16:01 UTC] No.43413758{7}[source]▶
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.

replies(4): >>43414784 #>>43415515 #>>43419715 #>>43445633 #
12. dowager_dan99 ◴[19 Mar 25 16:07 UTC] No.43413852[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>43415024 #
13. ethbr1 ◴[19 Mar 25 17:20 UTC] No.43414784{8}[source]▶
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...

replies(1): >>43415306 #
14. cutemonster ◴[19 Mar 25 17:37 UTC] No.43415024[source]▶
Drug drogs I suspect.
15. blindriver ◴[19 Mar 25 17:57 UTC] No.43415306{9}[source]▶
https://www.instagram.com/enjoyholywater/reel/C-3VLghyiHy/?l...
replies(1): >>43424677 #
16. g8oz ◴[19 Mar 25 18:18 UTC] No.43415515{8}[source]▶
>>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?

replies(1): >>43417703 #
17. wraaath ◴[19 Mar 25 21:55 UTC] No.43417703{9}[source]▶
Along with all of these Musk/Trump regime's antics, the cruelty is merely a feature, not a bug.
18. wezdog1 ◴[19 Mar 25 22:17 UTC] No.43417838[source]▶
Even if that were true it doesn't justify it.
19. tschwimmer ◴[20 Mar 25 03:41 UTC] No.43419715{8}[source]▶
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/

replies(1): >>43419804 #
20. blindriver ◴[20 Mar 25 04:01 UTC] No.43419804{9}[source]▶
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.

21. ethbr1 ◴[20 Mar 25 15:30 UTC] No.43424677{10}[source]▶
I must have missed the ownership table in that video.

How much of the company does she own?

replies(1): >>43426521 #
22. blindriver ◴[20 Mar 25 17:52 UTC] No.43426521{11}[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>43426602 #
23. dragonwriter ◴[20 Mar 25 17:56 UTC] No.43426602{12}[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>43430056 #
24. blindriver ◴[20 Mar 25 23:02 UTC] No.43430056{13}[source]▶
This is well established. You can argue all you want but you're wrong.
25. DangitBobby ◴[22 Mar 25 13:50 UTC] No.43445633{8}[source]▶
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.