Another escort detained at the border

[Nue2thegame]

21 minutes ago, DrownedBoy said:

Worse sometimes. I know of one Russian woman who was caught in America trying to marry a 70 year old man. After getting removed, although technically it's only 10 years, in reality there's no chance of then getting naturalized.

Ah, the difference between a sex worker and a gold digger but forgive me if I’m being presumptuous. 

[jayjaycali]

It is noble to want to empower the authorities.  

However I feel there's a different possible viewpoint on giving border officers broad discretion .  

Giving the government 'broad discretion' is like giving every cop a Skeleton Key to your front door. They say it’s so they can 'check if the stove is on' or 'make sure you're safe,' but at the end of the day, it’s still your door. I don't care how 'nice' the cop is; I don’t want a stranger walking through my living room whenever he has a 'hunch.'

I’m not trying to put the cops in a "straitjacket." If they see smoke coming out of the window, they should absolutely kick the door down. That’s Evidence. But they shouldn't be allowed to use that Skeleton Key just because I seem like the type of person prone to house fires.

And here's the thing: Having a lock on the door doesn't stop the cop from being a "good guy." If he comes in because the house is on fire and sees an expired tag on your car, he can still choose to ignore it. Restraining his power to enter doesn't take away his power to be merciful.

An alternative to broad discretion does not have to be rigid application, it can be restrained discretion according to precise laws not vague hunches.  

 

Ironically in a Canadian Prescreen area travellers like Milo are protected by Canadian Charter Rights against unreasonable search and R v Canfield, whereas these protections don't exist to prevent similar phone searches in the USA. 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 07:30 AM by jayjaycali

[+ SirBillybob]

R vs Canfield distinguished electronic devices from routine ‘goods’ searches at the border. Prior to that, phones were effectively fair game with no device-specific threshold. The Court introduced a requirement often framed as ‘reasonable general concern.’ That doesn’t gut border search powers; it moves the threshold off zero. In practical terms, it’s more a speed bump than a barrier. Which is why the Canada/U.S. rights asymmetry here is easy to overstate; the two systems are closer in effect than the rhetoric suggests.

I have been flagged a few times for secondary inspection when returning home to Canada, based on simple math probability metrics if not travel patterns as well. If my phone were to be confiscated for search … and the distinction here between forensic concern and visitor visa violation concern is also relevant … I would not have the option to ‘opt out’ in the same way a Canadian in US preclearance has that prerogative (not to romanticize it, because walking away doesn’t nullify refusal dispositions) but I would certainly reference my Charter rights, the Alberta and Ontario cases, ask for CBSA’s interpretation of general concern in the inspection context, and document it. Only for formality, as they could have at it with no objection on my part pre- or post- Charter rights-based ruling. How I am kitted out for sex tourism abroad, as reflected in residual unused items in my luggage, is far more private and revealing.

Finally, for visitors plying specialized consulting services up here involving payment in kind for time delivered, occupation on its own won’t justify a device search by CBSA but won’t insulate you from one either. 

Edited yesterday at 02:31 PM by SirBillybob

[jayjaycali]

'zero' threshold means unchallenged power, while 'non-zero' means Accountability. Well, my perspective at least. 

For Milo though as he was unprepared, I can certainly believe this threshold was a minor speed bump for the officers.  They were professionals who know how to use the interview to establish suspicion for the search after which the search would be conducted regardless 

 

Edited yesterday at 06:05 PM by jayjaycali

[+ SirBillybob]

Even if suspicion crystallized during the interview that time, Milo’s prior uneventful US entries don’t rule out that officers came in this time with information. He himself - and the various media commentary - floated ads, facial recognition, or a tip-off. Omitting that makes it look like officers had to manufacture suspicion, which isn’t the only plausible read. And cross-border activity in that “space” clearly isn’t uniformly enforced (AFAIK wrt other performers), which further complicates any single-cause explanation. 

Edited yesterday at 07:08 PM by SirBillybob

[mike carey]

For anyone wondering (those in certain jurisdictions, including the province of Alberta, the relevant jurisdiction in this case, would probably know), the 'R v' part is the abbreviation for (in this case) 'Regina versus', as criminal prosecutions in Canada and the other Commonwealth Realms are conducted in the name of the Crown, the Queen at that time. (A prosecution today would be 'Rex v'.)

[jayjaycali]

Thanks for pointing that out—implying that officers have to 'manufacture' or create evidence would be a reach, which is precisely why I didn’t say it. I appreciate our pre-emptively diverting the discussion away from what could have been a sideways attack on my credibility.

Perhaps a facial recognition 'ping' was enough. If so, it certainly proves that Restrained Discretion is not a straitjacket. The government can secure the border and act on leads without needing 'Broad Discretion' to dig through everyone else's private life on a whim.

Secondly, under a 'Broad Discretion' system without a legal bar, getting through the border is more like a lottery. You're simply hoping you don't get picked because you 'look like' someone who might have a reason to be searched.

This might surprise, but I actually want a strong system of law and order: an agreed-upon framework where the rules are known. I want to cross the border under well-established laws, not just cross my fingers and hope I don't trigger a personal hunch or a 'ping' from surveillance I'm not allowed to see.

Thanks for all the disucssions it's been a very interesting thread and helped me clarify my thoughts. I think I need to bow out here, though—it’s taking me an hour to write these up! (If I can, I'm finding the discussion fascinating).

Edited 19 hours ago by jayjaycali

[+ BOZO T CLOWN]

On 4/13/2026 at 3:23 AM, DMICS said:

As for Milo, because his situation is attached to sex work and making money from it while abroad. I don't think there's anyway he can get it reversed. He's banned from flying into the U.S., though he could potentially still be able to cross over by land but maybe there's tiers/levels of the no-entry list so he may get denied again. It's something he could try. 

 
So Milo got hit with a 10-year ban. The maximum penalty for this offense. 
Bozo was wondering if he took @DMICS advice and tried to re-enter the country, this time by land, would he just be turned away? Or would he be hit with an additional ban on top of the current one?

BTC
🤡

[DMICS]

Yeah, it's a tough call. 

When I did it, it was 4-5 months after my original "banishment." And I had no issues the immediate years after during my frequent trips, and at times summer-fall living over there. That's continued on without a hitch and I guess my six-year "ban" is long over by now. I've just never checked into it.

But again, my situation happened 11-12 years ago. I'd imagine a lot has changed since then, more specifically in the past 18 months. 

If I knew Milo I'd tell him it's an option to think about and maybe test it out with a bus trip to the U.S. side of Niagara (so in this case Buffalo). Or maybe plan a trip where there's no major expense per se, so a place like NY (where I'd assume he'd have friends to stay with), and two refundable one-way tickets. If he gets denied, then he'll at least get money back from the other ticket.

[BuffaloKyle]

1 minute ago, DMICS said:

If I knew Milo I'd tell him it's an option to think about and maybe test it out with a bus trip to the U.S. side of Niagara (so in this case Buffalo).

I know a place he can crash at so he wouldn't even have to worry about booking a hotel as part of his planning. 🤣

[+ SirBillybob]

The good news is that waivers in general are possible, but I think we’re mixing apples and oranges here. Not all banishments are the same and where a formal bar exists the expected route is a short-term inadmissibility waiver granted ahead of time. The downside of a less structured attempt isn’t just inconvenience. A test entry isn’t “neutral” and can add to the record rather than improve it. The accumulation of well constructed swings (sure, albeit with misses) bodes better for eventual success. 

The billeting idea is innocently cute but not helpful in a public forum if the concept of trade is inferred, however baselessly, considering this time the intention not reaching out for a session. 

Edited 1 hour ago by SirBillybob