Canadian man says he was denied entry, forced to submit DNA sample at U.S. border

[deleted]

The point was that they had no real legal reason to deny him entry as his intended activity was not illegal and would have, in fact, been an act of protected speech/action. They not only didn't have a legitimate reason to deny him entry they had no legal grounds on which to demand he provide a DNA sample.

He was afforded those rights the moment he was detained and put into US custody. If the law worked the way you're stating, then US agencies have no right to detain him since he wasn't in the US. There's a difference between being denied entry and having your DNA taken without counsel or due cause during a detainment.

You said that people on vacation can’t protest. They can.  This is a different issue from being allowed or denied entry in the first place. 

It is true "political unrest" is a spanning term so broad as to have no usefulness in critical thinking. You said that tourists in the US cannot legally participate which remains false. There is no disagreement on the country disallowing entry for numerous reasons.

Not according to the constitution. You have no idea what you’re talking about. Right to protest is one of the things the founders stood for.

False, once they entered the processing center they were on US soil.

And it's not like Americans are showing that they believe in the sanctity of laws.

I was hoping it applied equally to citizen & non-citizen alike but upon looking into it, it seems that [some courts weren't always so amenable to that interpretation](https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/rojas-v-moore-immigrants-and-the-first-amendment). That said, I'm not a lawyer (my PhD is in biology) so my understanding is based on a brief internet check. Regardless, I do know that taking DNA under the described circumstances is a big old no-no & huge violation of bodily autonomy.

This is what they said: “Taking DNA from a retired health physicist with no criminal record just for wanting to attend a protest? We are officially in the Show me your papers era of border security.” And this is what you said: “No you're not. This is standard practice. No country is going to allow someone to enter their country for the purposes of protesting the government.” Notice how they didn’t say anything about the person being denied entry? They only mentioned the person having a DNA sample taken. YOU changed the subject to the topic of them being denied entry and YOU completely ignored the point they *actually* made about the DNA sample.

Gee, you must get quite a good workout running around dragging those goalposts all over the place.

[The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms](https://publications.gc.ca/Collection/CH37-4-3-2002E.pdf) guarantees Freedom of Expression under part 2, Fundamental Freedoms: >2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: >(a) freedom of conscience and religion; >(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; >(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and >(d) freedom of association. Freedom of Expression is effectively Freedom of Speech without having to worry about anyone going "well it's printed so it's not really speech", or anything silly like that. There are limits, you can't incite violence and certain types of hate speech have been classed as being unprotected, but in general you are allowed to hold whatever opinions you want. What you quoted would not be something that would be considered hate speech and would be protected by the Charter. However, much like the US Constitution, its rights are guaranteed in as far as the government cannot prosecute or stifle you, it does not protect you against consequences from other private individuals or entities (as long as those consequences don't break the law). If you go into a store and start loudly exclaiming that everyone who works there is a thief and murderer, your right to free speech does not prevent them from kicking you out of their store and banning you for life, they can't stop you from standing on the sidewalk outside making your accusations, but the store is their property. r/canada is not a public institution, it is a privately run forum, well known among Canadian members of Listnook for having been taken over by right leaning douchebags (sometimes colloquially called "maple MAGA"). As it is a private group they are under no obligation to respect or support your rights within their space, and can decide freely what you are or are not allowed to say on their sublistnook. The fact that they're twisting the ideals of the Charter to try to justify their dipshittery is disappointing, but not surprising, and really no different than what similar groups in the US do to the Constitution.

The best thing to do is not come to the U.S.

nope, no way to prove going to the protest was your reason for entering the US, just because you ended up at one you only heard about the protests when you were downtown and you decided to check them out, people are allowed to change their minds and plans

This is a fight for Americans, not Canadians. Americans need to fix their government and joining in on the protests as a foreigner is dumb to begin with, even dumber to think they'd just let you.

You don't have protest in fascist countries? You people are out of your minds.

They didnt just take his DNA, they added him to a government watch list of possible foreign agitators. If he wanted to regularly visit his family, saying you're there to protest and getting put on a watch list is a supremely stupid thing to do.

I’m not sure how many times this can be said. As a Canadian, travel to the US is a privilege NOT a right. They can deny entry for a laundry list of reasons including a Border Agents discretion. In terms of providing a DNA sample, the individual in this story complied with the request, the DNA sample was NOT forcibly taken, it was given voluntarily.

Land of the free always applied to citizens. Us Canadians are not citizens of the US. Our visitation to the US should always be a privilege that comes with certain restrictions rather than a right of visitation.