Not that I support this, but it's not unreasonable to ask for information to stop illegal immigration or human trafficking. Some advocate groups have been an accessory to and/or aiding and abetting these crimes.
It is unreasonable to state that being asked for information is the exact same thing as being accused of a crime and found guilty. OP comment stated unequivocally that these journalists are criminals.
That's just False as far as we can tell. Being asked for information has nothing to do with actually being a criminal, but you are conflating the two.
When you're at a border crossing, the protections that you believe that you have are actually lessened or non-existent.[0]
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception
Feck it, have an upboat, anyways, just on principle.
When people re-enter the country, I can see it as a bit different and investigation could be more warranted, but I still don't agree with it. The fact these border zones are not considered US soil and you, as a citizen, immediately have some subset of rights is absurd and I doubt the founders of this country would agree with as being legal at all. I understand how such measures are justified through the idea of increased security, but it does so at the cost of liberty, which is never a good trade off.
Frankly, the US immigration services I've interacted with at the airport make you really feel like you're entering a police state when you return. Japan for example was a breeze and not at all intimidating and they have far stricter immigration policies than the US.
Bold move there, Cotton, got anything to back this claim up? As far as anyone's aware, these are just reporters who were reporting on the story.
I didn't say anyone was a criminal or what is a crime, what I am saying is that if you follow this particular train of thought:
1) You consider the action of Person A to be a crime. Note: The situation at hand at the border is so controversial, that many people DO consider it a crime, and many people consider their act as a RIGHT. I'll let you decide whether it is a crime or a right. But lets say you consider it a crime for the sake of this thought exercise. 2) You consider that the actions of Person B has aided Person A in the act in ANY way. 3) You reason from this that Person B has taken a partial role in the criminal act in 1) based on the legal doctrine that is Aiding and Abetting, which means: "aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures"
So can we agree that a person who believes it is a crime, and believes that journalists HELP the ones performing the acts, that that someone would also reason that those journalists are committing a crime?
This dodges the point: The journalists were suspected of political activism, not of intelligence gathering for a foreign power.