It's not deceptive - he never indicated that the correspondence was seized, illegally or surreptitiously snooped on, or even that it was electronic until the message where he clarified it was a printed email. Until then, it could have been postcards for all we knew. His point wasn't about the wiretapping or even the search of her luggage - it was on the trivial reason they sent her back. She didn't have anything like a "bag full of resumes".
Your response seems very hostile - apologies if it's not, though in that case you may want to work on your phrasing. Nobody here discloses everything perfectly all the time, and there's no indication the parent was intentionally deceiving anyone.
I think "deceptive" is a poor word choice, but it was certainly confusing.
Considering the subject of this post, the resulting discussion, and the larger discussion that's been going on across HN and much of the media and the internet for the past week, exactly how the authorities learned about what she said is critical in understanding how his point fits into the broader context. That his point was about the reason they sent her back, and not how they learned it, was not clear to me until he responded.
Your response seems very hostile - apologies if it's not, though in that case you may want to work on your phrasing. Nobody here discloses everything perfectly all the time, and there's no indication the parent was intentionally deceiving anyone.