French historian Henry Rousso held for 10 hours and threatened with deportation

If the stories of deplorable and pointless detentions are true, and there are no concomitant stories of terrorists being stopped at the border or whatever (something one assumes the government would be highly motivated to report), does it actually matter that the stories were under-reported previously in the press? The important thing is that the issue gets attention and is resolved.

We lack quantitative data, but the article has an expert practitioner's impression:

[Immigration attorney Jason] Mills said the treatment Mr. Rousso experienced was unusual, but representative of a shift in how some border agents are approaching their jobs.

"Now they’re looking really hard for reasons to deny, instead of reasons to admit," he said.

This was done under previous administrations just the same. Telling a CBP officer that you're come to be "paid to lecture" is usually the kind of honesty that doesn't pay off.

CBPs are triggered by the word "work" and "get paid". For example, when you come to volunteer on a WOOOFing farm, you're advised to say you've come for a learning experience rather than "to volunteer" (= CBP hears this as "to work"): https://wwoofusa.org/how-it-works/#will-wwoof-help-me-get-a-...

I disagree, and I too have extensive experience over many decades with border agents. I have both a Permanent Resident "green" card and a Global Entry card, yet 4 times in the past 12 months (and many times prior) I was extracted for Secondary Processing at the border, held waiting for hours without being allowed to use my cell phone, missing my connecting flights yet ultimately admitted into the U.S.. Every time it costs the U.S. tax payer an unnecessary fortune (I have Global Entry! - which itself took many many hours and dozens of pieces of paper and extreme vetting). The last time I was allowed directly into the U.S. without Secondary Processing was in the 90's. I don't find his story at all unusual.

It's easy to fix. Dramatically simplify the visa system.

If people are loudly concerned about competition for jobs, address it with employment taxes on workers that are not residents.

> This is probably a simple mix-up

What basis is there for concluding that?

Also, apparently Rousso has been traveling to the US for years, presumable sometimes in the same circumstances, without a problem.

> This is probably a simple mix-up that escalated because of a clash of cultures (both national and educational).

Twenty minutes would be indicative of a simple mix-up. 10 hours is honestly just kind of strange (think of how many people in the escalation process didn't understand the rules or didn't care) and IMO indicates a pretty serious problem.

a (quote) "simple mix up"? 10 stressful hours? I dread going for work again will avoid having to.

It's not unique to the US.

See this story related to the UK for example: https://webdevlaw.uk/2016/08/22/uk-conference-speaker-visa/

In fact, the UK appears to require a different visa for this purpose. (And it's not clear to me from a couple of things I've read that the Tourist Waiver Program covers paid engagements in the US arranged in advance--though there is a Business Waiver Program.)

Getting paid to speak at a conference can definitely raise issues if you're used to just getting a standard visa for tourism or just attending a conference.

There were plenty of other reasons to be afraid before, the random gun crime, police state, lack of healthcare and the TSA cancer machines / groping being the main ones. Being legally disinvited is only a fear if it's financially a hit to have to fly back from their airport.

Today, my wife, who is an American citizen of Indian origin, told me she is afraid to travel around town without her passport. We read stories like this and about broad ICE raids and the shooting in Kansas and it begins to take a toll.

And as an Australian resident, you are used to difficult bureaucracies, amirite?

As an American with Australian family, they always tell me how much easier dealing with the G is here when they visit and drive their massive rented RV around.

My partner and I are visiting Europe shortly (from NZ). We were going to transit the US on the way back, stopping for a few days. Luckily we hadn't booked return flights yet, and have since decided to visit Canada instead (luckily, Air NZ runs direct flights from Vancouver to Auckland now).

We're pretty boring pakeha, and I doubt we'd have trouble at the border. But... given a few months more until we'd be visiting, we're uncertain enough about what other legal requirements might get rammed through (and the ETSA is already enough of a hassle) that it just doesn't seem worthwhile.

This is just an anecdote, and I'm sure I'm being overly paranoid. But I don't really want to tack on a potentially very stressful end to a holiday. It makes me sad to think of how trivial an inconvenience this is for me, compared to friends I have who are much more strongly affected by the ban.

As the article says, agents feel empowered to find ways to deny.

Be prepared to have all your devices searched too. I'm talking about your photos, your online banking app, your emails, your Whatsapp logs, etc (just happened to an Australian I know) if they suspect you may be violating the terms of your visa. You can decline, but do you really want to cancel your trip, wait 12 hours for the next 15 hour flight back home?

(Edit: this is for non US citizens. US citizens don't need to answer any questions at entry, but be prepared to be taken aside for screening. You'll be asked to unlock your phone most likely, and if you refuse, they will confiscate it, but then you can enter.)

You mean, you don't find anything wrong with that fact that someone was detained for 10 hours, due to a single, "inexperience" agent? And he was a well-connected individual. Others would likely endure far worse.

Implication being that Trump's hand was in this fuck up?

Dude, seriously: customs needs no help to suck more at their job. This shit has always happened.

I am seriously considering changing my vacation destination this year from New York to someplace else.

We love New York and want very much to visit some places we haven't had the chance in other trips, but my girlfriend doesn't speak english and something like that would be tremendously traumatic for us.

I know at least a friend who cancelled a trip to the USA fearing immigration problems.

It's already going down:

http://www.frommers.com/tips/miscellaneous/the-travel-press-...

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/seek-foreign-flights-nyc...

> We need a movement to legalize borders as being under control of the legal system of the country.

They are subject to the legal system of the US. It's just that, within 100 miles of any border, Constitutional rights are limited, and non-citizens have fewer rights at border crossings.

Borders are under control of the legal system and policing them is a right that's granted to the Federal government by the constitution. It makes complete sense that the Federal government, which is elected by US citizens would be able to policy foreigners entering the country without being held accountable to them. That's how every country in the world works. You may not like this system now that "the wrong people" have been elected to run the federal government but that's the way the system works and it's incredibly reasonable.

I can't see how you draw the analogue of to a protection racket, they're not collecting money from anyone here.

Ah, yes.. profit incentive as the silver bullet for all that ails.

This myopic view is foolish and needs to die.

The immigration lawyer quoted in the article doesn't waffle about it.

Mr. Mills said the treatment Mr. Rousso experienced was unusual, but representative of a shift in how some border agents are approaching their jobs.

“Now they’re looking really hard for reasons to deny, instead of reasons to admit,” he said.

I've read similar stories before the current administration. Telling a CBP officer that you're going to be "paid to lecture" is not recommended. This is a kind of honesty that doesn't return a favor.