[newgeezer]

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

The headline is certainly a piece o' work.

[Iron Matron]

which means he has to cross the boundary illegally to attend services.



+++


They did not fine him for going to church. They fined him for crossing the border illegally.

Thats what should be done in every case of illegal entry - no matter for what reason, or how small the breach is.

[You Dirty Rats]

Completely misleading headline. The Feds did not fine him from going to church; they fined him for illegally crossing the border.

We better get armed troops up there ASAP to stop these illegal incursions!

[petitfour]

I think it's kind of stupid that he's been fined. Is he a terr'ist?

[ikka]

Just tell them "no hable Ingles" and they will let him go.

[freedomluvr1778]

The headline is waqck, but the last sentence sums it real nicely: No doubt he'd have better luck if he moved to a Mexican border town and waded the Rio Grande daily. Hey, and that way he could get "free" health care in U.S. hospitals at taxpayers' expense.

Cross from Canada "illegally" to go to church, get fined. Cross from Mexico illegally to do God knows what, get free things at my expense.

I wonder how they came up with $5,000 per incident? How does he owe that now?

[Johnny_Cipher]

First, as you're probably already aware, the headline in this story is extremely misleading. The man is not being fined for "going to church," he's being fined for crossing the border illegally.

Now, having gotten that out of my system, the story could have included more information about how he is crossing the border. Is the gate just left open with no one manning it? Is he having to drive off the paved road to get around the locked gate? The story doesn't make it clear. If he's simply driving through an open gate with no signs warning not to cross etc., then I might have some considerable sympathy for his plight. But if he's driving off the paved road, cutting the lock on the gate, etc., that's a different matter.

Whoever the incompetent editor at Newsmax is that allowed this one-sided, incomplete hit piece to appear on their web site should be fired.

[Prime Choice]

What's alarming about this article isn't the misleading headline or the fines: it's the sheer and utter comical "security" we have at the border.

What are we going to do when (not if) Muhammad bin Bomber just drives around these checkpoints during the off-hours? Send the fine to his Imam?

[Barnacle]

Ineffingcredible!

[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?

[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....

[Oztrich Boy]

Mr Bush, tear down this wall!

[Djarum]

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