A routine drive home across the Canada-U.S. border has turned into an immigration fight that could upend more than a decade of life in Washington state for a Canadian permanent resident. Paige Adamson, a 61-year-old Canadian citizen who has lived in Point Roberts, Washington, as a U.S. lawful permanent resident for 14 years, says she spent nearly six hours undergoing secondary inspection after returning from British Columbia on September 15, 2026.
U.S. authorities are now alleging that Adamson falsely represented herself as an American citizen while registering to vote and that she voted in Washington’s 2018 general election. Adamson disputes the allegations, and an immigration judge has not ruled that she violated election or immigration law. Her case illustrates how an old voter-registration record can suddenly carry enormous consequences for a green-card holder.
A Familiar Border Crossing Turns Into a Six-Hour Ordeal
For Adamson, crossing between British Columbia and Point Roberts was hardly an unusual journey. Point Roberts is an American community directly south of Delta, B.C., and its geography makes trips through Canada a normal part of everyday life for many residents. Adamson had been returning from a birthday dinner in Tsawwassen on September 15 when she reached the U.S. border shortly after 9 p.m. According to her account, the first significant question from the border officer concerned whether she had ever voted in a U.S. federal election.
Adamson said she answered that she had not. Instead of continuing home, however, she was directed into secondary inspection. The process continued until after 2 a.m., lasting nearly six hours altogether. She ultimately signed documents and was permitted to enter the United States. One document reviewed by CBC News stated that she would have to surrender for removal if ultimately ordered to do so. That language is significant, but it does not mean she was ordered deported that night. Instead, she left the border facing formal immigration proceedings.
What DHS Says Happened in 2018
The government’s case reaches back roughly eight years. According to Department of Homeland Security documents Adamson provided to CBC News, authorities allege that she falsely claimed to be a U.S. citizen for the purpose of registering to vote in Whatcom County, Washington. DHS also alleges that she voted in Washington state’s November 6, 2018 general election. Those allegations form the basis of the government’s attempt to establish that she can be removed from the United States.
The election involved much more than municipal or state-only contests. Washington voters were choosing a U.S. senator and members of the U.S. House of Representatives along with state officials and deciding ballot measures. State records show 3,133,462 ballots were counted from 4,362,459 registered voters, producing turnout of 71.83 percent. That federal component matters because U.S. law specifically restricts non-citizen participation in elections involving federal offices. The crucial unresolved question in Adamson’s case, however, is not whether the 2018 election occurred or contained federal races. It is whether DHS can prove what Adamson personally did and under what circumstances.
Adamson Gives a Different Account
Adamson’s version leaves several important facts disputed. During the border questioning, she maintained that she had never voted in a federal election. According to a transcript reviewed by CBC News, she also said she did not remember voting in a state election. At the same time, she acknowledged that she had received a ballot and accepted that she may have been registered. Those distinctions could become important because registration, receiving an automatically mailed ballot and actually returning a completed ballot are separate events.
Washington conducts its elections primarily by mail. Registered voters receive ballots before elections, and a voter returning one must sign a declaration affirming that the person meets Washington’s qualifications for voting. State law explicitly says the declaration must warn that voting is illegal for someone who is not a U.S. citizen. Consequently, documentary records could matter heavily in the immigration proceeding: how the registration was created, what information was submitted, whether a citizenship affirmation exists and whether election records show that a ballot associated with Adamson was returned. The public reporting so far does not resolve those questions.
Why Voting Can Put Permanent Resident Status at Risk
A green card provides substantial rights, including the ability to live and work permanently in the United States, but permanent residence is not the same as citizenship. Voting in federal elections remains a right reserved for U.S. citizens. Federal criminal law, under 18 U.S.C. §611, generally prohibits an alien from voting in an election held wholly or partly to elect the president, vice-president, members of Congress or certain other federal officials, subject to narrow statutory exceptions.
Immigration law creates a separate consequence. Under 8 U.S.C. §1227(a)(6), a non-citizen who votes in violation of a federal, state or local voting restriction can be considered deportable. Washington has its own restrictions as well: state law says a person who knowingly lacks the legal qualifications to vote and nevertheless votes in an authorized election commits a class C felony. None of that establishes that Adamson broke those laws. It explains why DHS’s allegation is serious even though she has been a lawful permanent resident for 14 years. Long residence does not automatically eliminate statutory grounds for removal.
A False Citizenship Claim Is a Separate Immigration Problem
DHS is not relying solely on the allegation that Adamson voted. Authorities also allege that she represented herself as a U.S. citizen when registering. That creates a legally distinct issue because the Immigration and Nationality Act separately identifies certain false claims of U.S. citizenship as grounds for deportability. Federal criminal law also prohibits knowingly claiming U.S. citizenship in order to register to vote or participate in a federal, state or local election.
The wording matters. Federal criminal law addressing voter-registration citizenship claims uses a knowledge requirement, while the immigration statute contains its own elements and a narrowly defined exception. That exception generally involves someone whose parents were U.S. citizens, who permanently lived in the United States before turning 16 and who reasonably believed they were a citizen. Public reporting about Adamson does not establish that those circumstances apply to her. More importantly, DHS still has to establish the factual basis for the charge. A database indicating that someone was registered does not, by itself, answer who supplied a citizenship affirmation, how it was supplied or what the individual understood at the time.
Washington’s Registration System Matters — but So Does the Timeline
Washington’s voter-registration system adds another layer to the dispute. Today, people obtaining or renewing an enhanced Washington driver’s licence or enhanced identification card can be automatically registered to vote because those enhanced documents require proof of U.S. citizenship. Current state rules therefore connect that automatic process to documentation establishing citizenship. A standard Washington licence, by contrast, does not itself establish that the holder is an American citizen.
Timing is particularly important in Adamson’s case. Washington enacted its major automatic voter-registration legislation in 2018, but the Department of Licensing system for automatically registering enhanced-licence applicants was implemented in July 2019. DHS alleges that Adamson voted in November 2018. It would therefore be inaccurate to assume that Washington’s current automatic-registration process necessarily explains how her record was created. Before the 2019 implementation, the Department of Licensing already transmitted voter-registration information electronically for customers who chose to register. Determining what happened in Adamson’s individual transaction will require the actual historical records rather than assumptions based on today’s system.
The Border Became the Moment the Issue Surfaced
Permanent residents accustomed to frequent travel can still encounter extensive inspection when returning to the United States. CBP explains that international travellers are initially processed through primary inspection, where officers examine identity, citizenship or immigration status and eligibility to enter. Officers have broad authority to send travellers to secondary inspection when additional examination is considered necessary, even when a previous crossing presented no problem.
In Adamson’s case, CBP told CBC News that permanent residents arriving at a port of entry can have their documents checked against federal and state databases. The agency said records indicating possible unlawful voter registration, illegal voting or a previous false claim of U.S. citizenship can result in detailed questioning, prolonged immigration inspection and, depending on the circumstances, formal removal proceedings. That helps explain why a dispute relating to 2018 could suddenly become consequential during an otherwise routine 2026 crossing. It does not establish that every database match is accurate, nor does the border officer make the ultimate judicial decision about whether a permanent resident is removable.
Removal Proceedings Are Not the Same as a Removal Order
The paperwork Adamson received represents the beginning of a legal process rather than its conclusion. The Justice Department describes a Notice to Appear as the charging document DHS uses to set out factual allegations and the statutory reasons it believes someone should be removed. Formal removal proceedings begin when the notice has been served and DHS files it with the immigration court. At the initial stage, the permanent resident can admit or deny the government’s factual allegations and challenge the legal charges.
For someone who has previously been admitted to the United States, federal law generally places the burden on DHS to establish deportability by clear and convincing evidence. The person in proceedings also has a reasonable opportunity to examine evidence, submit evidence and cross-examine government witnesses, and may be represented by a lawyer at personal expense. That distinction is central to Adamson’s situation. DHS has made allegations involving registration, citizenship representations and voting, but an immigration judge must evaluate the evidence. Her permanent-resident status does not guarantee the outcome, yet neither does a charging document itself cancel that status and conclusively establish wrongdoing.
Lawyers Report Similar Questioning, but the Scale Remains Unclear
Adamson may not be the only Canadian permanent resident encountering new questions about old voting records. Blaine, Washington-based immigration lawyer Len Saunders told CBC News that within roughly a week and a half he received calls from three people, including Adamson, who had reportedly been detained or extensively questioned at the border about voting. One involved a resident of Blaine who regularly crossed into British Columbia for work as a nurse. Saunders said encountering three similar situations in such a short period was unusual in his more than 25 years of practice.
That is noteworthy anecdotal evidence, but it should not be mistaken for nationwide statistics. Public reporting on Adamson’s case does not establish how many Canadian green-card holders are currently being investigated for similar issues, and Saunders’ suggestion that potentially many more cases could emerge is a lawyer’s assessment rather than a government count. What is documented is that CBP says its inspections can draw on federal and state databases and that suspected unlawful registration, voting or citizenship claims can trigger additional scrutiny. Whether the recent cases constitute a broader enforcement trend will require more data.
What Happens Next Will Depend on the Evidence
Adamson is expected to appear in immigration court in Seattle, where the dispute moves away from a late-night border interview and toward a formal evidentiary process. The government’s allegations will have to be addressed before an immigration judge, and Adamson can dispute both the underlying facts and the government’s legal theory. If the judge ultimately finds her removable, immigration law also provides procedures for determining whether any form of relief from removal is available in the individual case.
An immigration judge’s adverse decision is not necessarily the final procedural step. The Justice Department says qualifying immigration-court decisions can be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, generally by filing the required notice within 30 calendar days. For now, the defining fact is that Adamson has been accused, not finally ordered removed. The case carries potentially life-changing stakes for someone who has lived in the United States since 2012, but its outcome will depend on records that may be years old: voter-registration documents, citizenship declarations, ballot records and the evidence DHS presents to support its allegations.
