Maine governor comes face to face with Canadian travel fears
Maine's governor was confronted on Tuesday with the reality of how fearful some New Brunswickers are about visiting the United States while U.S. President Donald Trump is in the White House.
Janet Mills was in Fredericton for the second day of a tour through Atlantic Canada, hoping to reverse — or at least slow — a steep decline in the number of tourists crossing the border to visit Maine.
She and Premier Susan Holt delivered a joint ode to cross-border connections to a Fredericton Chamber of Commerce audience largely concerned about the impact of tariffs on their businesses.
But two questions from participants brought into sharp relief how immigration raids and the rolling back of trans rights is scaring some Canadians away from U.S. visits.
"A lot of members of the queer community — a lot of Canadians feel unsafe, Canadians who are 2SLGBTQI+ absolutely feel unsafe going there," said Vivian Myers-Jones, a member of the Saint John Pride board.
"It's a terrifying thing going down there right now."
Myers-Jones plans to travel to Bangor this weekend for Pride events there as part of a partnership between organizers in the two cities, but said many other members of the community are afraid to go.
Another member of the audience, business owner David Dennis, said his Venezuelan-born wife vetoed a planned trip to Maine this year despite his attempts to assure her that having Canadian citizenship would protect her at the border.
"Her fellow countrymen had been targeted for deportation and her comment was, 'I'm not going to the States this year,'" he told the two political leaders.
WATCH | 'It's a terrifying thing, going down there': Premier, governor hear concerns:
Even before the question-and-answer session, Holt herself used the U.S. political situation to encourage New Brunswickers to travel within the province this summer — as she has been since the Trump administration first announced tariffs on Canadian exports.
"Lots of people don't feel safe in the U.S. right now and for good reason, and until that changes I think the climate for visitors will be difficult," she said.
Mills said Maine has among the lowest crime rates in the U.S. and Canadians should feel secure hiking, skiing, swimming and shopping there.
"You can do that safely," she said.
She acknowledged as governor she has no control over how the U.S. Border Patrol or Immigration and Customs Enforcement operate in the state.
"But for the most part, they're busy in other places. They know that the relationships between Calais and St. Stephen, Madawaska and Edmundston, are sacred, and I don't think they want to damage those relationships either," she said.
After the 90-minute session wrapped up, Mills approached Dennis while he was speaking to reporters and hugged him.
"Tell your wife we'll keep her safe," she said.
The governor said she could understand Canadian angst "when you hear one or two stories on a 4,000-mile border. It can be scary and people have a right to feel anxiety. But tens of thousands of people are crossing the border every day."
She called New Brunswick's multiple border crossings with Maine "the safest places in the world to cross an international border."
Holt acknowledged that Mills opposes Trump's policies, even challenging them in court.
But she said the governor's assurances that federal immigration crackdowns are happening far from Maine won't persuade everyone.
"Not knowing where they're going to be next makes it a really uncertain environment for anyone who feels they might be targeted [by] ICE," Holt said.
Visits by New Brunswickers to Maine have been down by about one-third this year compared to last year.
Holt is spending this week travelling around New Brunswick with Tourism Minister Isabelle Thériault to promote various destinations within the province.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
28 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Supreme Court Rules on Birthright Citizenship: What to Know
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Supreme Court is meeting on Friday to decide the final cases of its term, including one concerning President Donald Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of parents who are in the country illegally. Why It Matters The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that all children born in the United States are automatically American citizens. But the issue before the justices in Trump v. CASA is not the lawfulness of Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship for some people. Rather, they are weighing whether judges have the authority to issue the nationwide, or universal, injunctions, that have blocked Trump's order from being implemented. The Trump administration has complained that judges are overreaching by issuing orders that apply to everyone instead of only the parties involved. Such orders have plagued both Republican and Democratic administrations over the past decade, but they have emerged as an important check on Trump's agenda, increasingly frustrating the president and his allies. The U.S. Supreme Court is seen in Washington, D.C., on June 24, 2025. The U.S. Supreme Court is seen in Washington, D.C., on June 24, 2025. Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images What To Know Trump signed an executive order to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily shortly on his first day back in office on January 20. Federal judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts have issued nationwide injunctions blocking Trump's order, with one calling it "blatantly unconstitutional." The Trump administration then made an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court to narrow the court orders that have prevented his executive order from taking effect anywhere in the U.S. At oral arguments in May, the high court appeared highly skeptical on how Trump would implement the changes to birthright citizenship. But justices also showed signs they wanted to limit nationwide court orders. What People Are Saying Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers, previously told Newsweek: "It's very possible, maybe even likely, that the Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions in Trump v. CASA. Some of the conservative justices, like Justice Gorsuch, have expressed concern that such injunctions give district judges the power to block federal laws nationwide. The Supreme Court may establish a rule to limit injunctions to the parties in the case or the district or circuit where the case is filed. Or it may require a higher standard to grant nationwide relief. Though the criticism of nationwide injunctions may be warranted, having inconsistent immigration holdings in different states may be its own problem. Immigration law needs to be uniform and applied consistently across the country." President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social ahead of oral arguments in the case in May: "Birthright Citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent Citizens of the United States of America, and bringing their families with them, all the time laughing at the 'SUCKERS' that we are! "The United States of America is the only Country in the World that does this, for what reason, nobody knows — But the drug cartels love it! We are, for the sake of being politically correct, a STUPID Country but, in actuality, this is the exact opposite of being politically correct, and it is yet another point that leads to the dysfunction of America." Ama Frimpong, Legal Director for immigrant rights nonprofit CASA, said in a statement after oral arguments in the case: "This is not a law or policy that needs to be changed. Let's be clear about what this is. This is an attempt at white supremacy. This is an assault on Black and brown families. On our very existence. "What Trump and the administration are trying to do is erase our communities and our families from this country entirely. They want to deny citizenship to children born here—our children, our babies—just because their parents are immigrants." What's Next The justices take the bench at 10 a.m. for their last public session until the start of their new term on October 6. This article includes reporting from The Associated Press.
San Francisco Chronicle
36 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Supreme Court delivers blow to transgender rights in Tennessee ruling
The Supreme Court allowed President Donald Trump to expel thousands of transgender troops from the U.S. military last month while it considers his request to ban them from service. So it came as no surprise Wednesday when the court upheld a Tennessee law, similar to laws in 26 other states that have restricted gender-affirming care for transgender minors. While the ruling is a major setback for transgender rights, it will not affect states like California that do not have bans on care for minors. The court also said this case raised different issues from those in its landmark ruling in 2020 that declared a federal law banning sex discrimination in employment also barred discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. In its 6-3 ruling Wednesday, the court said the Tennessee law does not discriminate based on sex or transgender status because males and females have access to the same types of treatment for other purposes. The court weighed in on the debate over the medical value of gender-affirming care for minors. Some recent studies have not found evidence that the treatments are beneficial. Chief Justice John Roberts said in his ruling that 'the voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound.' But shortly after the ruling, the American Academy of Pediatrics blasted it, saying, 'The Supreme Court's decision today does not change the science. Gender-affirming care remains evidence-based, medically necessary care that improves the health and well-being of transgender youth.' The unsuccessful legal argument against the ban on medical care — that it would violate a transgender youth's constitutional right to equal protection of the laws — is the same argument advocates have used in challenging other parts of Trump's agenda, such as banning transgender military service, cutting off federal funding for research on gender identity, moving transgender women to men's prisons, and refusing to allow people to change gender identification on their passports. The rollbacks are in line with an executive order Trump issued on his first day in office in January, declaring that the U.S. government recognizes 'two sexes, male and female,' as determined at birth. Lower courts have blocked some of those restrictions, but by rejecting the sex-discrimination argument Wednesday, the Supreme Court indicated that it is likely to uphold the president's orders. The ruling could make states like California a haven for transgender youths from other states, a role it has played for women seeking abortions since the court's 2022 ruling overturning the constitutional right to abortion. In response to the ruling, state Attorney General Rob Bonta said, 'In California, we will continue to promote and protect access to health care, not restrict it.' In Wednesday's majority opinion, Roberts said the Tennessee law, Senate Bill 1, is not discriminatory because it treats male and female patients equally. 'SB1 prohibits healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers and hormones to minors for certain medical uses, regardless of a minor's sex,' Roberts said. Because youths of either gender can still receive those treatments for other reasons, he said, the law does not discriminate based on sex. He cited an example raised in the dissent, of a minor girl with unwanted facial hair inconsistent with her sex seeking hormonal therapy to remove it, treatment that is not prohibited by the Tennessee law. And he said the state 'does not exclude any individual from medical treatments on the basis of transgender status but rather removes one set of diagnoses — gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, and gender incongruence — from the range of treatable conditions.' In other words, a law that denies transition care to minors who identify as transgender does not violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws, or bans on sex discrimination. 'Tennessee determined that minors lack the maturity to fully understand and appreciate the life-altering consequences of such procedures,' the chief justice said, and 'there is a rational basis' for those conclusions. Justice Neil Gorsuch, the author of the 2020 ruling on employment discrimination, joined Roberts' opinion, along with Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. In a separate opinion, Alito said there was 'no evidence that transgender individuals, like racial minorities and women, have been excluded from participation in the political process.' And Thomas said states 'may legitimately question whether such treatments are ethical' for minors. In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by the court's other Democratic appointees, Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, said the law was clearly discriminatory. 'Male (but not female) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like boys, and female (but not male) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like girls,' Sotomayor wrote. 'By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims.' Bonta, whose office filed arguments urging the court to overturn the Tennessee law, condemned the ruling. 'Across the nation, we've seen a rise in hate-fueled violence and intimidation against our LGBTQ+ community, and laws such as Tennessee's Senate Bill 1 only serve to exacerbate these conditions by blatantly discriminating against transgender youth,' California's attorney general said. State Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, chair of the Legislature's LGBTQ Caucus, said the court 'is giving bigots like Trump a permission slip to make it impossible to be trans.' Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, recalled the court's 2022 ruling overturning its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that declared a constitutional right to abortion, and said the court 'has once again taken a wrecking ball to Americans' rights to make decisions about their own bodies.' But Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, whose office defended the law in court, described the ruling as 'a landmark victory … in defense of America's children.' And Carrie Severino, president of the conservative Judicial Crisis Network, said the court had properly 'refused to engage in judicial second-guessing of democratic decision-making. Thank goodness the old days of judicial self-aggrandizement that defined the Roe v. Wade era are behind us.' The case is U.S. v. Skrmetti, 23-477.
The Hill
36 minutes ago
- The Hill
Iran's top diplomat says talks with US ‘complicated' by American strike on nuclear sites
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Iran's top diplomat said the possibility of new negotiations with the United States on his country's nuclear program has been 'complicated' by the American attack on three of the sites, which he conceded caused 'serious damage.' The U.S. was one of the parties to the 2015 nuclear deal in which Iran agreed to limits on its uranium enrichment program in exchange for sanctions relief and other benefits. That deal unraveled after U.S. President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out unilaterally during his first term. Trump has suggested he is interested in new talks with Iran, and said that the two sides would meet next week. In an interview on Iranian state television broadcast late Thursday, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi left open the possibility that his country would again enter talks on its nuclear program, but suggested it would not be anytime soon. 'No agreement has been made for resuming the negotiations,' he said. 'No time has been set, no promise has been made, and we haven't even talked about restarting the talks.' The American decision to intervene militarily 'made it more complicated and more difficult' for talks on Iran's nuclear program, Araghchi said. Israel attacked Iran on June 13, targeting its nuclear sites, defense systems, high-ranking military officials and atomic scientists in relentless attacks. In 12 days of strikes, Israel said it killed some 30 Iranian commanders and hit eight nuclear-related facilities and more than 720 military infrastructure sites. More than 1,000 people were killed, including at least 417 civilians, according to the Washington-based Human Rights Activists group. Iran fired more than 550 ballistic missiles at Israel, most of which were intercepted but those that got through caused damage in many areas and killed 28 people. The U.S. stepped in on Sunday to hit Iran's three most important strikes with a wave of cruise missiles and bunker-buster bombs dropped by B-2 bombers, designed to penetrate deep into the ground to damage the heavily-fortified targets. Iran, in retaliation, fired missiles at a U.S. base in Qatar on Monday but caused no known casualties. Trump said the American attacks 'completely and fully obliterated' Iran's nuclear program, though Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Thursday accused the U.S. president of exaggerating the damage, saying the strikes did not 'achieve anything significant.' There has been speculation that Iran moved much of its highly-enriched uranium before the strikes, something that it told the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, that it planned to do. Even if that turns out to be true, IAEA Director Rafael Grossi told Radio France International that the damage done to the Fordo site, which was built into a mountain, 'is very, very, very considerable.' Among other things, he said, centrifuges are 'quite precise machines' and it's 'not possible' that the concussion from multiple 30,000-pound bombs would not have caused 'important physical damage.' 'These centrifuges are no longer operational,' he said. Araghchi himself acknowledged that 'the level of damage is high, and it's serious damage.' He added that Iran had not yet decided upon whether to allow IAEA inspectors in to assess the damage, but that they would be kept out 'for the time being.'
