Pro-Trump New Hampshire dad is stuck in Canada after visit. Green card holder's lived in US since he was 3
Chris Landry, who has been a legal U.S. resident since 1981 when he was three-years-old, was stopped at the border in Holton, Maine, despite having a green card.
'They pulled me aside and started questioning me about my past convictions in New Hampshire,' he told NBC News, speaking from New Brunswick. 'They denied me re entry and said, you know, don't come back or we will detain you.'
Landry, who was born in Canada, faced of marijuana possession and driving with a suspended license in 2004 and 2007.
He was given a suspended sentence and paid a fine, and has had no criminal record since.
'I never expected that I wouldn't be able to go back home,' he told WMUR. 'It was scary. I felt like I was being treated like a criminal.'
'The only way for me to get back in was to see a immigration judge,' he told NBC, adding that his future is now 'uncertain' and he worries he may have to spend the rest of his life in Canada.
Landry was traveling with three of his children, who are all American citizens, when he was stopped. They will reportedly return to the U.S. in the coming days.
Though he was unable to vote in the 2024 U.S. presidential election, Landry said he was a fan of Donald Trump. However he says his attitude towards the administration and its policies have now changed.
'I was definitely all for Make America Great Again and having a strong unified country and a bright future for my five American children, but now I feel differently,' he said.
In a statement, USCBP said: 'Possessing a green card is a privilege, not a right, and under our nation's laws, our government has the authority to revoke a green card if our laws are broken and abused.
'Lawful permanent residents presenting at a U.S. port of entry with previous criminal convictions, may be subject to mandatory detention and/ or may be asked to provide additional documentation to be set up for an immigration hearing.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
12 minutes ago
- CBS News
Appeals court largely keeps restrictions on immigration raids in Los Angeles area
An appeals court late Friday mostly kept in place restrictions on "roving" immigration raids in the Los Angeles area, agreeing with a lower court judge who found that sweeps conducted by the Trump administration in Southern California appeared to have been predicated on people's race and other factors, like speaking Spanish. A panel of judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit largely denied a Trump administration request to suspend the lower court ruling, which required federal immigration officials to have reasonable suspicion that someone is in the country illegally before detaining them. The immigration raids at the center of the legal battle triggered massive protests in the Los Angeles area in June, as well as widespread fears among the region's large Latino community. While most demonstrations were peaceful, instances of violence led President Trump to deploy National Guard troops and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles with orders to protect federal buildings and the immigration agents enforcing his far-reaching crackdown on illegal immigration. Most of them have since been demobilized. Those high-profile immigration arrests in California have continued, led by Customs and Border Protection agents who have been assigned to help Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers with furthering the Trump administration's mass deportation campaign — in some cases, far away from the U.S.-Mexico border. Beyond requiring CBP and ICE to have reasonable suspicion before detaining someone, the July order from U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong prohibited federal agents from basing arrests on people's race or ethnicity, the fact that they speak Spanish or have an accent, their presence in a location, or their occupation. Frimpong stated that any immigration arrests that relied exclusively on these factors violated the U.S. Constitution's 4th Amendment, which protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. "We agree with the district court that, in the context of the Central District of California, the four enumerated factors at issue — apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent, particular location, and type of work, even when considered together — describe only a broad profile and 'do not demonstrate reasonable suspicion for any particular stop,'" the 9th Circuit panel wrote in its opinion Friday. The panel was comprised of Circuit Judges Ronald M. Gould, Marsha S. Berzon, and Jennifer Sung, appointees of former Presidents Bill Clinton and Joe Biden. The cases cited in the lawsuit against the Los Angeles-area immigration sweeps involved arrests in June near a car wash, a tow yard and other locations where U.S. citizens were among those questioned about their legal status and detained by federal agents. Advocates have described the operations as "roving patrols." The 9th Circuit did alter one part of Frimpong's ruling, removing an exception to her ban on using the four factors that include people's race and vocation when making arrests. The panel said that an "except as permitted by law" clause in her order was too vague. Pro-immigrants advocates hailed Friday's ruling, denouncing the Trump administration's immigration sweeps as indiscriminate raids that have instilled fear in the Los Angeles area. "Every person, regardless of immigration status, has the right to live, work, and belong in their community without being hunted, harassed, or locked away," said Lindsay Toczylowski, president of the Immigrant Defenders Law Center, a Los Angeles-based group that represents those facing deportation. The Trump administration has maintained in court that federal officials rely on intelligence packages and certain information — like "past experiences" that immigrants living in the U.S. illegally frequent or work at certain locations — when carrying out immigration enforcement operations. CBS News reached out to representatives for the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE and CBP, to request comment on Friday's order.
Washington Post
42 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Appeals court upholds block on indiscriminate immigration sweeps in L.A. area
A federal appeals court has upheld a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California on the basis of race, among other factors. The Friday ruling came after the administration withdrew most of the remaining National Guard troops that President Donald Trump had ordered to Los Angeles in June, along with about 700 active-duty Marines, to quell demonstrations against federal immigration raids in the state and 'support the protection of Federal functions.' Mark Rosenbaum, an attorney for the plaintiffs, celebrated the appellate ruling by a three-judge panel, saying in a statement that it 'sends a powerful message: the government cannot excuse illegal conduct by relying on racial profiling as a tool of immigration enforcement.' 'These raids were unconstitutional, unsupported by evidence, and rooted in fear and harmful stereotypes, not public safety,' he said. The Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not immediately respond to requests for comment early Saturday. The temporary order was granted by Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California last month as part of a lawsuit filed by immigrant advocacy groups in Los Angeles and a group of individuals who had been detained or questioned. Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued that Trump's mass deportations involve tactics that are unconstitutional, including patrolling and rounding up individuals without reasonable justification and refusing them legal counsel. The temporary order prohibits the federal government from making immigration detention stops solely on the basis of apparent race or ethnicity, whether a person speaks Spanish or speaks English with an accent, presence at a particular location, or the type of work one does. In her ruling, Frimpong wrote that there was a 'mountain of evidence' that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. The order applies to the seven counties that fall within the Central District: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura. The three judges with the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — two appointed by President Bill Clinton and the third by President Joe Biden — wrote in their ruling upholding the order that attorneys for the federal government had argued that the plaintiffs could not show a sufficient likelihood of future injury occurring without the temporary order, nor could they show a 'real and immediate threat' that they will be harmed again. But while the plaintiffs — which include three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens — had only been stopped once, their attorneys provided a statement from another individual who had been stopped twice by immigration officers twice in 10 days. The judges — Ronald Gould, Marsha Berzon and Jennifer Sung — added in their ruling that it was important to note that the defendants in their motion to suspend the temporary order did not dispute that the stops 'have been based solely on the four enumerated factors' of race, language, location and job. 'They did not challenge the district court's findings that those stops are part of a pattern of conduct that has apparent official approval. And, finally, they did not meaningfully dispute the district court's conclusion that sole reliance on the four enumerated factors, alone or in combination, does not satisfy the constitutional requirement of reasonable suspicion.' The judges added that the defendants' general descriptions of training regarding the requirements for a lawful seizure 'do little to overcome Plaintiffs' specific evidence showing a series of similar detentive stops without reasonable suspicion,' and that they agreed with the district court that this conduct was 'part of a pattern of officially sanctioned behavior.' In a statement after the District Court ruling last month, Bill Essayli, the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, maintained 'that our agents have never detained individuals without proper legal justification.' The appeals court's decision marks yet another setback for the Trump administration's immigration agenda. Also Friday, a federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from rapidly deporting immigrants granted parole at a port of entry — a decision that could affect its ability to remove hundreds of thousands of people.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Why more fentanyl production could be moving to Canada
Although there's no evidence of any significant flows of fentanyl into the United States from Canada, an American authority on 'criminal supply chains' warned Friday that that could change abruptly if U.S. efforts to better seal its border with Mexico are successful. Jonathan Caulkins, who researches supply chains that support illegal markets for the Manhattan Institute think tank and Carnegie Mellon University. said the drug cartels that control the North American fentanyl trade may well shift large chunks of their operations to Canada if the northern border becomes the path of least resistance. Caulkins, the co-author behind a recent Manhattan Institute study of fentanyl supply chains, said the cartels are sophisticated, mobile and will adjust quickly if their cross-border routes are choked. 'They're not trying (now), but they sure could,' he said in an interview hours after U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order to increase tariffs on some Canadian exports (those products that aren't captured by the Canada-U.S.-Mexico free trade agreement) to the U.S. to 35 per cent from 25 per cent. Those tariffs, which kicked in earlier Friday, were necessary, according to Trump, because Canada has failed to co-operate with U.S. efforts to curb 'the ongoing flood of fentanyl and other illicit drugs.' Candace Laing, chief executive of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said Trump's fact sheet on the tariffs should be called a 'fact-less sheet' when it comes to using fentanyl as a justification for trade decisions about Canada. 'More fact-less tariff turbulence does not advance North American economic security,' she said. In the Manhattan Institute study, Caulkins and colleague Bishu Giri found that the vast majority of the fentanyl entering the U.S. from within North America is coming from Mexico, not Canada. They used new data from 2023–24 to show that about 40 per cent of the large seizures of fentanyl in the U.S. occurred in counties along the Mexican border, while just 1.2 per cent of the fentanyl powder and 0.5 per cent of pills along the Canadian border. To effectively combat the problem, the researchers wrote, law enforcement and legislators need to begin with accurate information. Caulkins said that fentanyl producers in Mexico and Canada are different in that the Canadian operations tend to produce opioids from imports that are nearly completely assembled with just the finishing ingredients added here, while the cartels in Mexico assemble all the ingredients to make opioids in that country to export to the U.S. In both cases, he said, the imports are believed to come mostly from China, although India may also be a source. Since Trump first raised the allegation earlier this year about fentanyl 'pouring' into the U.S. from its northern neighbour, Canada has taken a number of steps to combat the flow of illegal drugs, and to be seen to be doing so, into the U.S. The steps included: reinforcing the Canada-U.S. border with additional technology, helicopters and personnel; allocating $78.7 million to expand Health Canada's regulatory capabilities; increasing co-ordination with American law enforcement counterparts; hiring a fentanyl 'czar'; and launching consultations on improving crackdowns, as well as tabling Bill C-2, the Strong Borders Act to give Ottawa more law-enforcement powers. Kevin Brosseau, the fentanyl czar, was not made available for an interview this week, but in an interim report released in June he pointed out that U.S. Customs and Border Patrol data show that only 0.1 per cent of fentanyl seizures at U.S. borders are at the Canada-U.S. border, far less than the flow of illegal narcotics into Canada from the U.S. One thing that the players in the fight against illicit drugs seem to agree on is that the problem requires a multi-faceted response that addresses the border, legislative changes, money laundering and other financial angles, and enforcement that targets both precursors and fentanyl itself. The RCMP also declined an interview this week, but stated in an email that it intends to hit organized crime 'harder and faster' and that one of its priorities is to work with industry to prevent the diversion of precursors that are used to make fentanyl. Jamie Tronnes, executive director for the Center for North American Prosperity and Security, the U.S.-based office of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, said Canada seems to be doing a good job of cracking down on the fentanyl trade, and ensuring that those efforts are seen by Trump and others in the White House. 'I believe that Canada is doing everything it can to demonstrate it's taking it seriously,' Tronnes said. She said Canada could focus more, however, on money laundering and other international financial crimes. Darren Gibb, head of communications at the Financial Transactions and Report Analysis Centre (FINTRAC), which works with police and financial institutions to target crimes such as money laundering and terrorist financing, said hiding profits from illegal activities such as fentanyl production isn't easy. 'It's their Achilles' heel,' he said of the drug cartels. National Post stuck@ Trump signs executive order to start 35% tariffs on Friday Contrary to Trump's claims, Canadian border is not major source of fentanyl, U.S. report says Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.
