"A spokesperson for US Customs and Border Protection confirmed that the visa waiver program prohibited applicants from engaging “in any type of employment or get compensation for services rendered”. The rule, which appears to prohibit house-sitting for free accommodation, took Gourley completely by surprise and she said she now wanted to warn other Australians of the consequences of volunteering to house-sit or pet-sit in the US or neighbouring countries."
It's just the usual thing, emotive title aimed at capturing the audience hoping they won't read far enough to discover the truth if it's even mentioned at all.
This sort of thing evidently works though, especially on places like Facebook where only the title and manipulative photo is shown, most people won't bother reading the article.
I admittedly fell for this one as the guardian used to be honest - questioning someone and deporting them for abortion related is deplorable but that wasn't the case at all...
And yes, I do feel that a lot is generated these days, normal people don't write a lot of this stuff and if they do they shouldn't be journalists.
I have to question whether you are commenting in good faith. You have selectively quoted (in other comments) and you are conflating The Guardian with techniques used on Facebook. The Guardian are not stating anywhere in the article that she was deported for abortion, not did the woman herself claim as much.
Ok, sure. The title has nothing to do with the reason she was expelled. But why would CBP even ask the abortion question? On what possible basis is that a reasonable question to ask?
We don't know they even did, that's the point really - why would they omit asking a lawful question when asked for comment - the article if it can be believed said they deported her on visa grounds and nothing else.
"At one point a US border official asked Gourley, who was wearing a loose-fitting dress, whether she was pregnant."
That is not asking about abortion, that may simply be a question to determine where she is held as if she was pregnant a small room may not be appropriate and may need medical attention - do you see the problem here? They're misleading
And before anyone comments on the next bit of the article, a recent abortion would mean any weight gain (it isn't mentioned but the last question could easily be just because she is overweight) is still evident and may still require attention if in distress, which I imagine being detained might be - the rest can easily be attributed to horrific incompetence and negligence but that is expected.
Correct, they conflate pregnancy questions with abortion just because it's a hot topic right now, this probably happened 1000s of times this year as children born on US soil are Americans so it is a valid question whatever the ethics but that wasn't reported - honestly I'm just sick of seeing this garbage and I for one want to see on HN: fair, balanced, checked news.
Proving you haven't bothered to read the article. The woman herself is directly quoted as having been asked that specific question.
I find it ironic that you're making stuff up to accuse a journalist of making stuff up. Whether it happened or not is still open to question (is Gourley a believable person?), but it's not open to the accusation you're making.
Believable is an impossible test, they don't offer enough information about her or even about the incident to determine whether she's being honest or not
You've selectively quoted from the article. The full passage follows:
=====
At one point a US border official asked Gourley, who was wearing a loose-fitting dress, whether she was pregnant. The same question was repeated as she was moved between rooms. When she again told the US officials she was not pregnant, Gourley was asked whether she had had an abortion.
“She was walking me from one room to the next, and she asked the pregnancy question again,” Gourley told Guardian Australia. “I don’t know if she had forgotten, or she wanted to work out if I was lying or something. “I said no, and she looked at me again and said, ‘Have you recently had an abortion?’
=====
Unless Gourley is directly lying, she herself (not the journalist) has stated quite unequivocally that the she was asked 'Have you recently had an abortion?', following on from being asked twice about whether she was pregnant.
In addition to selectively quoting, you've assumed motivation on behalf of the CBP person asking the question - that the purpose of the pregnancy question was related to concern about Gourley's medical condition. However the fact of the "pregnancy question" also comes from Gourley, which you're accepting was asked. Did she then make up the "abortion question"? You seem to be trying to have it both ways. That the pregnancy question (as reported by Gourley herself) happened but was merely out of concern, and that the abortion question (also as reported by Gourley herself) did not.
If immediately assume CBP were malicious and not just useless then sure, but that isn't a good story, what's better is to make it sound like they removed her for violating an abortion law, which if they did and it was a lawful question, wouldn't have bothered hiding when asked for comment, if it was unlawful then internal investigations will need to be done
Again it's misleading here, if she was in fact on a transit (connecting flight) then this wouldn't have happened but since she attempted to enter the US it's probably that she had non connecting flights, no evidence either way because the article is nonsense
Actually the entire article is a shitshow, the last bit is telling about how much effort was applied:
Information on the Australian government’s Smartraveller website warns citizens in general terms that US authorities “have broad powers when deciding if you’re eligible to enter”.
Travellers must provide an onward or return ticket and show they have enough money to support themselves, it says, and should be prepared to answer questions about the purpose of the visit, how long they plan to stay, where they will stay and their ties to Australia.
“If you provide false information, or can’t satisfy the officials you’re visiting for a valid reason, you can be refused entry,” the advice says.
All of which is factual and none of which detracts from the main point which is why did a CBP officer ask the woman (as quoted by the woman herself) whether she had had an abortion? Questioning this is a legitimate basis for an article given what's happening in the US. Nowhere in the article is the claim made that she was deported due to an abortion.
17 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 52.3 ms ] threadHow far the mighty guardian have fallen
This sort of thing evidently works though, especially on places like Facebook where only the title and manipulative photo is shown, most people won't bother reading the article.
I admittedly fell for this one as the guardian used to be honest - questioning someone and deporting them for abortion related is deplorable but that wasn't the case at all...
And yes, I do feel that a lot is generated these days, normal people don't write a lot of this stuff and if they do they shouldn't be journalists.
"At one point a US border official asked Gourley, who was wearing a loose-fitting dress, whether she was pregnant."
That is not asking about abortion, that may simply be a question to determine where she is held as if she was pregnant a small room may not be appropriate and may need medical attention - do you see the problem here? They're misleading
And before anyone comments on the next bit of the article, a recent abortion would mean any weight gain (it isn't mentioned but the last question could easily be just because she is overweight) is still evident and may still require attention if in distress, which I imagine being detained might be - the rest can easily be attributed to horrific incompetence and negligence but that is expected.
I find it ironic that you're making stuff up to accuse a journalist of making stuff up. Whether it happened or not is still open to question (is Gourley a believable person?), but it's not open to the accusation you're making.
=====
At one point a US border official asked Gourley, who was wearing a loose-fitting dress, whether she was pregnant. The same question was repeated as she was moved between rooms. When she again told the US officials she was not pregnant, Gourley was asked whether she had had an abortion.
“She was walking me from one room to the next, and she asked the pregnancy question again,” Gourley told Guardian Australia. “I don’t know if she had forgotten, or she wanted to work out if I was lying or something. “I said no, and she looked at me again and said, ‘Have you recently had an abortion?’
=====
Unless Gourley is directly lying, she herself (not the journalist) has stated quite unequivocally that the she was asked 'Have you recently had an abortion?', following on from being asked twice about whether she was pregnant.
In addition to selectively quoting, you've assumed motivation on behalf of the CBP person asking the question - that the purpose of the pregnancy question was related to concern about Gourley's medical condition. However the fact of the "pregnancy question" also comes from Gourley, which you're accepting was asked. Did she then make up the "abortion question"? You seem to be trying to have it both ways. That the pregnancy question (as reported by Gourley herself) happened but was merely out of concern, and that the abortion question (also as reported by Gourley herself) did not.
Since when is it the business of US CBP to decide who can work in Canada? That should be up to the Canadian immigration authorities.
Information on the Australian government’s Smartraveller website warns citizens in general terms that US authorities “have broad powers when deciding if you’re eligible to enter”.
Travellers must provide an onward or return ticket and show they have enough money to support themselves, it says, and should be prepared to answer questions about the purpose of the visit, how long they plan to stay, where they will stay and their ties to Australia.
“If you provide false information, or can’t satisfy the officials you’re visiting for a valid reason, you can be refused entry,” the advice says.