Posted by miles 6 days ago
* Do we agree that a law enforcement arm of any country should be allowed to perform warrantless searches of electronic devices?
* Do we find it acceptable that persons with critical views are denied entry to countries that profess protection of speech for its citizens?
* If we find either of the above objectionable, what should we be doing to stop it?
The reality is that this is on the rise, not just in the USA but globally, and we should be having frank discussions on whether this is acceptable or not given its repercussions.
For context, despite my critique of an unnamed EMEA government, they’ve happily let me into their country repeatedly to do work for an employer, associate with my colleagues, and perform volunteer work within its borders. On the flip side, I have serious doubts about my ability to enter authoritarian regimes like China because of my outspoken critique of government policies, regardless of my intentions within their borders.
This [broader issue] is what we should be discussing, not nuanced specifics over a single incident.
That’s what I’m getting at, here. Folks are digging into the details of what’s in front of them instead of stepping back and looking at the bigger picture first.
"Let's not discuss this specific government policy, because should governments even exist" is not very interesting.
Which is why the guy in the article is wrong:
> I don't feel there is any point in contacting the State Department, nor do I think they have any power against such a powerful and strict country as the United States
That's exactly what he should have done if things happened as described and the Norwegian government should then take appropriate action.
It was the parent to my comment that was suggesting otherwise.
Not even remotely the case
From a practical standpoint it’s completely unworkable to require an actual judge to evaluate every person coming in and out to issue or deny a warrant. The costs alone are staggering.
I’ve posted a lot of pro-Taiwan content and not once have I ever been interrogated at the Chinese borders. Many times they don’t even talk to me.
Unless you are a well-known and famous agitator, I highly doubt they will even care about you.
IRL, the dictatorships we have don’t actually control the population that much. As long as it doesn’t create problems for the administration , nobody cares what you talk about..
Not just citizens: AIUI the various US Constitution Amendments apply to everyone with-in the US. And more generally, the US sees itself—or at least its ideals—as the model people should strive for ("City upon a Hill").
Mostly correct (depends on which amendment), but technically this guy didn’t cross into the US yet since he hadn’t cleared customs and border control…so the first amendment doesn’t apply to him.
No where does it say "on US soil" or "for US Citizens," and that is absolutely 100% by design based on the founding fathers philosophy which can be read in the declaration of independence.
It states plainly and unqualified "make no law abridging the freedom of speech." This both asserts that there is a freedom of speech that exists outside of the government and that congress shall make no law abridging it.
In their philosophy, the government purposefully doesn't grant the right to freedom of speech, because the founding fathers argument was that their, and all people's, natural god given (literally) rights are why they were justified in rebelling against the British government -- that rights exist outside of, and above, the government.
IANAL, but I don't think that's how it works: you're in US jurisdiction, and governed by US law (including the highest law of the Constitution), when you cross the twelve nautical mile control zone by plane (or boat).
* https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
* https://www.aclu.org/documents/constitution-100-mile-border-...
> Rasul v. bush and Boumediene v. Bush guaranteed due process for prisoners of Guantanamo; In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, an 1898 decision, the Supreme Court birthright citizenship is stretched to people born to illegal immigrants; Plyer v. doe and Yik Wo v. Hopkins gave 14th equal protection clause; Padilla V. Kentucky gave the right to legal counsel; Bridges v. Wixon (1945): The Supreme Court ruled that a noncitizen could not be deported solely for political speech, affirming that the First Amendment applies to immigrants; United States v. Alvarez-Machain (1992): Acknowledged that noncitizens in U.S. custody still have constitutional rights.
* https://old.reddit.com/r/Askpolitics/comments/1jlfhss/who_do...
What we are seeing now is an assault on the idea of rights. This border control action is a salami slicing tactic against the idea of rights itself. To rob others of their dignity... their freedom to express themselves and form their own beliefs and convictions without consequences from the government means that it is no longer a right to have your own opinions and assessments, but instead that is a privilege reserved only for "the protected."
Rights exist as a counter-force to tyranny and the entire idea, language, and history of rights exists in the context of when it is justified to break the rules of authoritarian governments and fight tyranny. To call something a right is to say it is worth breaking the law to protect because it exists above law. The declaration of independence is absolutely crystal clear that rights supersede law which is why the founders of America were justified in violating British law and forming a government that protects rights rather than violates them.
When you do not protect the rights of others, it is a prelude to losing your own rights because once a right is turned into a privilege for anybody, structurally it has been turned into a privilege for everybody because the "right" is no longer derived from human dignity, but from law. Eventually you will disagree with those in power, and you will come to discover the same techniques used to weaken others rights will weaken your own. There is always a pretext or game to be played. Slavery was made illegal, but prisoners are allowed to be enslaved. Drug law turned people into criminals, which gave the government permission to take away their rights and force them into slave labor, which is a clear moral hazard. Denaturalization is something that can happen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denaturalization#Human_rights
If freedom of speech can only be denied to those who are not protected by state, then the state will figure out how to put you in the class of unprotected people, whether that is foreigner or criminal.
By the time you feel at risk of your own rights being violated, you will find yourself and everyone else have been habituated to ask if that specific person's rights should be protected rather than if a right has been violated or if you would feel robbed of your own dignity in that same situation, and the answer will be no, because the cost of answering yes will be too unbearable to acknowledge because doing so both creates a sense of personal responsibility and puts you at mortal risk while simultaneously making you feel alone, since nobody else seems to be provoked enough to act.
It took Erdogan 20 years to dismantle the core of the secular republic for example , arguably he hasn’t finished it.
America's peers as a country are not Europe, Japan, Turkey, but other very large area, very large population countries i.e. Russia, China, Brazil, India.
Meanwhile everyone is broke and precarious.
People aren't very willing to risk everything they have just to get brutalized by a cop that will later be acquitted
I did not keep the count of many times I crossed each borders, but I can assure you it was pretty much always easier to get into China than it was to get into the US (and that was before Trump).
Chinese authorities are no jokes, but the amount of non sense you need to put up to get into the free land, is very high.
Another reality is that people don't actually value personal freedoms, and they happily give that up in exchange for a tiny bit more sense of security. Lots of discussions on this topic assume that westerners believe in freedom of speech, but that's simply not true.
Yes, but it's (IIRC) that it's so blatantly happening in the Land of the Free World where the first amendment of the constitution is touted as the best law ever written in history.
When it comes to border control, I've looked into several of these outrageous claims, and they consistently omit critical details that point to a valid reason for denial. Being denied entry and then having an overzealous border agent tsk-tsk at your meme is not nearly the same thing as being denied entry or thrown in jail because of it. And now OP primes us to think that the details don't really matter. I think they do, because every conversation on the current administration is now tainted by propaganda (in both directions).
They just tell you that you they are denying you entry and putting you on the next plane back.
That being said, we are clearly only getting one side of the story and I'd love to know what _exactly_ that found on his phone, but given how consistent the stories have been (pulled into secondary, forced to unlock personal media under threats of imprisonment, strip search, disappearance for a few days or weeks) I am inclined to move this from the "anecdotes" to "anecdata" to something-very-close-to-data category.
If you chose to rebutt this with the "millions of people come in to the US every year with absolutely no problem" I'd like to say that only 0.02 people die by train per 100,000,000 miles travelled. Does that mean I don't want the NTSB to investigate train crashes or that these peoples deaths (and injuries) don't matter because they comprise such a low percentage?*
I am extremely sympathetic to his position of his phone automatically downloading media he is sent. My phone's WhatsApp settings came with "auto-download any images people send you to your (local, on-device) gallery" set as default. I also had Google Photos installed, which had the option of "auto back-up any images/videos you store on your phone to your Google Photos account" which I turned on because I break my phones often. The result was that several relatives with questionable (and opposite) political tastes have their memes (think [pollitician x] next to a [hate symbol]" (got it? Good. It's not the one you're thinking of!) automatically stored on my phone and backed up to my Google Photos account, not even accounting for the automatic WhatsApp backup that is stored on my Google Drive account.
From previous reporting, the agents plug in the device into a forensic analyzer which dumps out a list of images/videos that were saved (note the distinction between "that you saved" and "that were saved") and use it against you.
I can't imagine what it must feel like to arrive here from Norway to go camping and be subject to a strip-search and interrogation because someone you may not even consider a friend sent you some shitty memes a few years ago. Or, in this case, because they found a "anti-JD-vance" meme that even JD vance seems to think is fine?
[0] https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics...
I think you're looking at this point the wrong way around: If the people bringing these stories up had good examples, they should use those instead of these questionable ones. Using these stories instead makes it look like the US is doing a good job of not overreaching.
I think the title is deficient and should be based on this higher-weighted fact, over the weaker phrasing "refused entry".
"Tourist jailed without trial for possessing political cartoon"
I don’t doubt that it’s possible he was denied because of the Vance image and that in itself says something terrible about the current state of affairs.
But I think it’s more likely that he was stopped based on some other red flag like not having a return ticket and denied because of that.
He does say he was detained PRIOR to the picture being found. Being detained if far more relevant than being asked about a photo.
It's also important to note that Border Control will not tell you WHY you're being denied entry, so the person ascribing it to the meme is speculating based on being asked about it.
Edit: It was drug use according to CPB: https://x.com/CBP/status/1937651325354795444
Not the hundreds of “highly intelligent and immune to manipulation” HackerNews readers apparently.
How are you even certain the story happened?
Why would you be any degree of certain that it happened the way that this angry Norwegian is saying it happened?
How would you have any idea you’re being manipulated or not? Would you care if it entirely aligned with your presumptions and preferences?
That he was refused entry because of the picture is his speculation and likely not the full truth because they only found the picture after already pulling him aside.
There is certainly questionable behavior by the CPB here if the description is correct but lets not make conclusions that aren't backed by facts.
Edit: CPB refutes that he was denied entry because of the meme: https://x.com/CBP/status/1937651325354795444
The context: He smoked weed in California, where it's legal, years ago.
This guy isn't a drug trafficker. He's not doing meth or heroin, never did. He smoked weed, in a legal state (as millions of Americans do on a daily basis).
Then he made the critical mistake of handing over his phone to be searched, rather than flying home (!), upon which advanced creepy software (probably developed and funded by some of this very crowd) flagged this 'federal crime' of smoking weed while in Cali.
So yes, the meme is a red herring, but it's distracting from a thing that's still incredibly fucked up.
It's still a demented justification to turn someone away from the country. "You can come here, buy weed in a majority of states, and face no fear of repercussions... Until you try and come back in". That's nutty. It's batshit.
And, the real reason he was brought in - as brought up by the Immi officers - was that he was doing journalism at one of the anti-genocide protests.
Keep in mind I'm very much not pro Isreal, but it's not practical or moral to have foreign partisans participating in our politics that way.
That would be called 'freedom of assembly', which is a universal human right (see Article 20 of the UNDHR). Highly moral, most practical, and widely recognized as such.
A state (not federal) senator and his wife were attempted murdered, but both survived and are expected to recover.
Your comment frames it as if 2 members of federal congress were assassinated which would have been a much bigger deal. State politicians being killed is still shocking and tragic, but try to be precise in your language as to not mislead.
This is not a good sign for democracy in the US. I think a healthy response would be protests, investigations, state and federal "comissions" looking into domestic political terrorism, etc. A whole lot of consequences. Instead there is nothing.
In contrast, in Brazil (not even a best example of a healthiest democracy) the assassination of a city councilwoman (city! not even state!) has been a dominant story in politics for many years and has never completely fallen out of public attention. It's been close to a decade!
I'm not one to quickly say "fascism" or to spell out doom but even to me this is a crystal clear sign of a system starting to fail...
Jail almost by definition means pretrial detention, so "jailed without trial" is a tautology.
Nitpicking about the precise legal terminology is a bit pointless in this context.
If some protester got arrested for protesting, the reasonable thing to do is to call it just that, not "protester jailed without trial for protesting".
> A jail holds people for shorter periods of time (for example, less than a year) or for pre-trial detention and is usually operated by a local government, typically the county sheriff.
> A prison or penitentiary holds people for longer periods of time, such as many years, and is operated by a state or federal government. After a conviction, a sentenced person is sent to prison.
Here's an example of it used that way in Virginia's laws, at https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter1/secti...
> The authorized punishments for conviction of a misdemeanor are:
> (a) For Class 1 misdemeanors, confinement in jail for not more than twelve months and a fine of not more than $2,500, either or both.
I've even read (but not experienced) reports of GrayKey or UFED being used to download someone's unlocked phone for offline analysis also. Your choices at the border are either: Unlock your phone and MAYBE get let in, or refuse which is best case a guaranteed entry refusal or worse case a 5 ban (for "non-cooperation" as inadmissibility reason).
The US (and UK) treat non-citizens terribly at the border; even with zero history or justification. It is even worse for non-white Europeans.
That's if they search your phone which isn't standard procedure for every entry. Likely it means you have already been flagged for something else.
I don't think the threat of a fine or jail time is real. Even if the agents said that, that's not an actual legal penalty they can apply. They can deny entry to someone on a visa, but they can't deny entry to a citizen or legal resident. They can keep your device, though.
https://www.aclutx.org/en/news/can-border-agents-search-your... has a lot of good details.
> "Later I was taken back in, and the situation got even worse. I was pushed up against a wall and was strip-searched with a lot of force. They were incredibly harsh and used physical force the whole time," he claimed.
> "I felt completely devastated and broke down, and was close to crying several times. I was on the verge of panic.
That sounds worse than being denied entry.
I looked up the article in Norwegian Reddit and someone posted a link to this person's Youtube channel where he shoots guns and (apparently, as I don't speak the language) has made comments about the President. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC68cjx7WTYtXGhC3rLD3N4A
This could be the long arms of Palantir scanning social media and identifying him as a person of interest.
But also interesting is the response that Norway's Ministry of Foreign Affairs put out (I checked, this was in response to his specific case):
> Entry regulations can change at short notice, and it is the traveller's responsibility to have valid documents and be familiar with the current entry regulations. It is the immigration authorities upon arrival who decide whether you are rejected at the border.
Which seems to hint that the subject arrived in the US without proper paperwork.
No, it's just a general statement. Because they can't comment on specific cases.
Also note, he would not have been allowed to board the plane in Norway if he didn't have the papers in order. They check that before going to that part of the international terminal.
Ok, so help him fill out the proper paper work. At which point does this justify strip searching and assaulting someone?
Norway regularly strip searches suspects, to mostly the same level of standard as other European countries and even the US.
The grounds they use to determine suspicion might be different, but in both countries a lot of discretion is given to the officers.
That's kind of the whole point, isn't it?
I don't get why people keep posting that tweet in this thread as if it justifies what happened. It's insane, and needs to be addressed.
The legality of weed in the US is quite complicated. It is officially still as illegal as ever at the federal level and those laws are the ones that border control care most about. I never said that being denied entry because of that is "fair" or how things should work but it is not entirely unexpected. The US has historically been very hard on drugs and anyone visting ought to know that. It's best not to test the limits of the laws when you are a guest in a foreign country.
>"“Look, we both know why you are here,” the agent told me. He identified himself to me as Adam, though his colleagues referred to him as Officer Martinez. When I said that I didn’t, he looked surprised. “It’s because of what you wrote online about the protests at Columbia University,” he said."
[0] https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-lede/how-my-reporting-on-... ("How My Reporting on the Columbia Protests Led to My Deportation")
What has changed recently is technology collapsing the world into a single blob of information, and that aspect gets worse every year.
The law works differently at the border, especially for non-citizens. Tourists don't have any legal right to get in. You may argue that the guards should be kinder and I would agree.
The historical examples you mention involve racism and slavery that were terrible but also the global standard at the time.
The Patriot Act is scary, but it doesn't seem much better elsewhere in the Anglosphere or in Europe. Say something impolitic loud enough and you'll get in trouble anywhere.
Here's hoping individual freedoms win in the end.
Depends on who "you" are.
There some some who are allowed to openly make tangible, if thinly veiled death threats to others without repercussions. Others can have their lives ruined over trivial things.
The "you"s who are not granted as much freedom of speech are aware of it and only express themselves among trusted people.
The type of speech being policed is different, but it's absolutely happening.
i drove to Surrey to a UPS Store, resealed and shipped the package and returned to the border. The US Immigration officer asked why I was only in Canada for 30 minutes, I explained, he laughed and sent me on my way.
Moral of the story is that every country can and will search your stuff and detain you and often turn you back for no meaningful reason.
Horribly authoritarian, with wanton disregard for human rights, yes, but not "fascist".
Fascism is a specific ideology invented in Italy in the early 20th century; it does not just mean any authoritarian dictatorship.
Indeed, but those people are wrong. It would be like calling Jerry Falwell an Islamist extremist. Maybe they are bad for vaguely similar reasons but it is still inaccurate.
If you start telling me about how Syria has a serious problem with fundamentalist Baptists I am just going to assume you have no idea what you're talking about.
Really, you're just pissing into the wind.
I agree that the term fascist is wildly over-used, to the point where actual fascist behaviours are getting normalised.
To add another example to your list -- the TSA also has their own police (e.g. Federal Air Marshal Service), but they don't work the line screening your baggage.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_Unite...
If you are doing something illegal, they call the police, and the police arrest you.
Or is it “huh europe is weird they give their TSA agents guns instead of having the transport security and also airport police?”
Not sure I would ever consider the GDR to have been "fascist".
Is it? Lack of rights at the border isn't "fascism", it's the norm. I don't think any country gives you 4th amendment (or similar) rights at the border, even liberal democracies.
TSA employees in 2000's USA scan your luggage and poke through it with technology. For any reason or no reason, they can open it up and poke through it by hand, or ask for assistance from nearby policemen with guns.
Is there any moral difference? If so, what is it?
(Also, nitpick: The East Germans were Communists, not fascists.)
We take into account motivation pretty often to evaluate morality not sure why you can't apply it here
TSA's purpose is prevent harm to other passengers (effectiveness is debatable but not the point), the east German border guards were there to keep control on what information the population could access and share
They are not the same thing even if the means look the same
There's no action (and by that I do mean action, not something abstract that involves multiple actions and choices) that won't be moral some times and immoral others. Intent is always to be accounted for. I'd be happy to have counterexamples if you have any in mind
Also pretty weird to see you infuse a sense of moral superiority to this website of all places
There was probably some nationalism too. Stalin buried internatonalism quickly. They would inevitably bow to the Russian overlords. No shame about it. We were bowing to the USA in the West and we still are.
Anyway, was communism only a facade by the 70s and the 80s? In that case it was a fully fascist country. All of the East.
I'd like to hear from somebody who lived in those countries at that time.
You do you but that's gonna be a no for me.
I don't want to be in some Central American concentration camp when they decide that its time to turn on the ovens.
Like it or not, these countries are who you are being compared to.
France: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230329-french-woman-...
Spain: https://www.catalannews.com/society-science/item/belgian-cou...
Poland: https://www.intellinews.com/polish-writer-faces-prison-for-c...
United Kingdom: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/09/13/queen-elizab... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/16/activist-shock...
Italy: https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/18/italia...
Note in most of these cases people prosecuted faced graver consequences than not being let into the country, and were full citizens, not foreigners.
Belgium abolished similar law in 2023. Switzerland allows you to mock local politicians, but not foreign ones based in Switzerland (go figure). Portugal, Iceland, Denmark and Brazil still seem to have such codes, though I am not aware of any recent prosecutions (maybe they exist, I'm just lazy and don't want to make this into a whole M.Sc. thesis in political science).
The fact that you have to get approved before traveling(that is fine), and then can be denied entry when you arrive for no logical reason is absurd. Visiting the US is simply not worth the risk and hassle.
Its crazy when you expect your privacy to be more respected in China.