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

Hemp And Honey seems to be a store that happens to sell Holy! Water. They seem to carry a lot of brands.

This appears to be their site: https://enjoyholywater.com/ - You can see they seem to focus on nootropics, mushrooms, herbs, etc with a little bit of hemp in it. Not so nefarious. This stuff is carried in mainstream stores all over the place.

The norm pretty much worldwide is that if you present yourself at a border crossing and are found inadmissible, you are refused entry and turned around. Some people have wrongly used the word "deport", but that isn't what it is: Technically she will have never even been in the country until granted entry, so she should have just been refused entry.

She didn't sneak into the US and get caught walking through the desert. She didn't overstay an expired visa. She did what she was legally required to do and presented herself at a lawful border crossing to apply for the necessary visa. And for those who note that she previously had been refused the same visa, by her story the conditions of her visa had changed leading to a new, unrelated application, which again is how it is supposed to work.

And when they refuse that visa, thus denying entry, they say "sorry, you can't come in" and you have to go back to where you came from, which in this case was Mexico. Even if she flew in on an international flight and they refused entry they would make her stay in the international terminal (which is technically not "in" country) until a flight out happens.

That she was quite literally arrested on some unknown pretence is bizarre, and seems like the "feed the private prison" ploy.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/music/article-canadian-...

Of course police in the US are now demanding that Canadians answer the question "Canada or the United States", so zero Canadians should be travelling in that country. Law has broken down into some bizarre, hyper-partisan charade, and the end result is going to be civil war.

Her visa was revoked, and then she entered the US again. That's an immigration offense that can get you detained at the border (any international airport).

While I agree with you, it is observably true that many people take different positions on the issue and then demonize those who disagree with them, converting it into a partisan issue.

Another commenter (now deleted) made the claim that, saying an issue shouldn't be partisan is “just saying ‘everyone should believe what I do’ but in the lexicon of people who look down their nose at the general public.” They added, “The only nonpartisan issues are the most basic of things that all societies have like ‘don't murder people’ (but even then the minutia become debatable).” Although the comment has been deleted, I think this merits a little further exploration, because it's a widely held viewpoint, and there is some truth to it, though I disagree more than I agree.

There are definitely people who mean, "Shouldn't be a partisan issue," that way, but what I mean when I say it is that from the clash of opposing opinions comes the spark of insight, and partisan struggles in which arguments are soldiers do not permit that process to happen: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-c...

I have frequently observed variants of the following exchange in mathematics classrooms:

Professor [writing on blackboard]: So you see that this just reduces down to x² + a.

Student sitting in the third row of the audience: No, it's x³ + a.

Professor: Hmm. [pauses]

Student: Because the x from substituting f doesn't cancel.

Professor: Yes, you're right. So you see that this just reduces down to x³ + a.

Sometimes it goes the other way, and the student is the mistaken one. Neither participant goes into the discussion on the premise that "everyone should believe what they do"; rather, they believe that by discussing the issue they can arrive at an agreement, which may involve changing their own mind. Converting the discussion into partisan struggle prevents that from happening. Imagine what would have happened in my example if the discussion had instead gone as follows:

Professor: So you see that this just reduces down to x² + a.

Student: No, it's x³ + a.

Professor: I don't remember paying tuition to come and see you lecture.

Or, alternatively:

Professor: So you see that this just reduces down to x² + a.

Student: You didn't even do a modicum of research. It's x³ + a.

Or, how about this?

Professor: So you see that this just reduces down to x² + a.

Student: No, it's x³ + a.

Professor: You're being manipulated into thinking that this factor is being canceled incorrectly by the horrible evil professor.

Or, how about this?

Professor: So you see that this just reduces down to x² + a.

Student: "x²" ? Êtes-vous fou ? Restez avec x³ !

This difference comes out in its purest form in mathematics, but it's also possible for discussion and consultation to reach agreement on empirical and even moral issues. But partisanship is an obstacle in that process.

Don't worry, a lot of us are already stopping spending money in your country.

Cross-border trips to the U.S. reach COVID lows with nearly 500,000 fewer travellers in February https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cross-border-trips-decline-...