this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2026
226 points (99.6% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
9391 readers
435 users here now
Rules:
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a post/comment removed, please appeal.
- Off-topic posts will be removed. If you don't know what "Leopards ate my Face" is, try reading this post.
- If the reason your post meets Rule 1 isn't in the source, you must add a source in the post body (not the comments) to explain this.
- Posts should use high-quality sources, and posts about an article should have the same headline as that article. You may edit your post if the source changes the headline. For a rough idea, check out this list.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the post body.
- Reposts within 1 year or the Top 100 of all time are subject to removal.
- This is not exclusively a US politics community. You're encouraged to post stories about anyone from any place in the world at any point in history as long as you meet the other rules.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out:
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Has a DUI and a weapons charge. Sounds like they got it right for once.
"a misdemeanor charge that stemmed from police discovering a handgun in the glove compartment of the car Curtis was driving, which was only registered to his wife, and an impaired driving arrest eight years ago"
How is a Canadian registering a handgun? This is his version of why he is detained.
What they really think is the crime of being dark skinned.
While they did manage to find something to check off the right forms as "is criminal", those were years ago, and had no reason to do anything about it now, and no reason to suspect he would reoffend, given the nature of the crimes.
So no, they're in the wrong.
From our perspective, they’re in the wrong. From the perspective of people who are “tough on crime,” they’re in the right.
I'm not defending this necessarily, but just saying Canada won't let you cross the border even for a visit, if you've had a DUI ever. I find it unsurprising they're digging into full history.
Because Canada considers DUIs a felony-level offence, regardless of how the home jurisdiction considers it.
There are places in the states where it's a misdemeanor and has a lower bar for conviction than the Canadian provinces have, but to the border entry requirements, a DUI is a DUI.
That said, there are ways to become readmissible, but it's a huge pain in the ass.
So, just like all the other “criminals” they are deporting.