“but we have to go by it for the sake of argument.”
No - I don’t. We still in the US and it’s a free country - and yes - drugs are destroying the US and yes, we still need to fight on multiple fronts - and yes, training and hiring qualified people will stop abuses...but we just don’t know the situation down there because NONE OF US were there!
This may be the first time she was stopped - it may be the 22nd time she was stopped - maybe they received intelligence - maybe her face or passport was in question...I get my passport swiped every time I enter the US from a foreign travel - and I go to some bad places - but never have I been taken to the side and examined - because I NEVER give a bogus story like she did...the “uncle” part is what is referred to as an indicator and can be used to further inquiry...I’ done talking about this — most people on here have no background in situations like these - I’m defending CBP’s actions - nor am I coming to the defense of this unknown woman called Jane Doe...the US News cannot be trusted nor can the ACLU and these article serve no purpose but to give a low amount of unchecked allegations and everyone wants to set them in stone as facts!
I was flying from CO to VT. So were several others. Entirely random.
” most people on here have no background in situations like these “
You keep saying that, but won’t give us yours.
Besides, background does not matter.
Again, I refer you to the United States Constitution.
Like I said, you’re just making up things that are not part of the story as reported here. She could have killed 8 kids in mexico and had their heads in a duffel bag, but it doesn’t say that, does it?
To be perfectly honest with you I didn’t read the story at the link, so I have nothing to say about her visiting an “uncle”, but people are allowed to have relationships, even across borders; and they are allowed to have bonds of affection, even without blood ties. [I could say a few other things here, but I won’t out of my ultimate respect for FR and our generally gentile discourse]
Wait, what am I saying? We are not “allowed” to do these things, we are FREE to do them. These are part of our inalienable rights, they come from God, not from the government, not from our peers, not from our betters, from GOD.
As to the reference to her as “Jane Doe” that is common legal usage, done when for whatever reason a person does not want their real name used (See Roe v. Wade - in this case I imagine the woman is mortified at what happened to her - you seem to think she must be a criminal but there it nothing, not an iota that substantiates that) or if their name is not known. The use of Jane Doe in this filing says NOTHING about the legitimacy of this woman or her claims.
I grew up in NYC in the 1970s, I was always very pro-cop. That has changed.
And despite all your jack booted thugery I can still buy any illegal drug in any town in this country.