Hacker News Reader

Comment by ericmay | Hacker News Reader

"The Chinese students were deemed inadmissible to the United States based on information discovered during the CBP inspection," the CBP statement said.

Look. The Feds don’t always have bad reasons for doing things. I know we have a lot of problems and the social media and computer searches aren’t something I find myself condoning, but before we jump to any conclusions we should at least wait to see why exactly they were denied entry. It could be BS, or they could be targeting Hong Kong supporters amongst Chinese students currently studying in the US or Canada or elsewhere. It seems odd to me that the Feds would target these specific 9 students so I think it’s worth the time to wait until we hear more.

View on HN

> It seems odd to me that the Feds would target these specific 9 students so I think it’s worth the time to wait until we hear more.

agreed, but its important to understand the role of the media is bring things to light, for the sake of transparency so that society can hold people accountable.

While we should absolutely resolve to get more information before making any kind of decision, we should also ask why the CBP is able to operate with such a lack of transparency that these kind of stories are a requirement.

> we should ask why the CBP is able to operate with such a lack of transparency that these kind of stories are a requirement

This is why we have habeas corpus. CBP has to charge them in reasonable time or let them go (though I'm not sure they have to let them into the country). There is a legal framework for this kind of stuff, though it's almost certainly worth waiting until we actually get information.

Let's consider the other side: if CBP thinks it found something, it's possibly got a reason to flag some one. However, it's probably not good for CBP to then go around telling every one, "Hey! We think we found some thing on these people!"

> before we jump to any conclusions we should at least wait to see why exactly they were denied entry

I understand it's not as easy, but we should at least try for "innocent until proven guilty" when it comes to the government denying privileges. I'm all for the government denying entry, but it should be clear what the offense was.

>we should at least try for "innocent until proven guilty"

This method of justice is reserved for our court system inside the US and most likley not work for our borders due to the fact agents must make educated or gut decisions.

>I'm all for the government denying entry, but it should be clear what the offense was.

This seens to be a contradiction to your other thought.

> This method of justice is reserved for our court system inside the US and most likley not work for our borders due to the fact agents must make educated or gut decisions.

You mean there are two standards in USA one at the borders another in the country.

So all countries denying reporters, human rights workers or dissidents or protestors to enter their borders are doing it correct, because the rule of law is inside borders not outside.

So your thought justify very much the border agents analysing your phones and electronic media before entering, like the way in recent memories happening in Hong Kong borders due to protests.

You might, but personally I cannot agree with such a notion of dual standards of law. I understand entry to a country and visa is a privilege not a right. But if a country believes in rule is law and on foundations of "Innocent until proven guilty", then it should abide by it.

It is really a difficult call. On one hand, “first they came after the Jews”. On another, by Chinese laws their citizens have obligations to cooperate with their intelligence agencies. China is a technologically advanced mass surveillance state, with dictatorship regime on the rise. This dictatorship regime and its intelligence services have no issues with controlling their citizens by any means possible (from requests to follow their laws to intimidation of family members, etc).

> It is really a difficult call.

In my view it isn't, USA has chosen common law jurisdiction which clearly states "Innocent until proven guilty". So it should not just put it on the books, but has to follow it in spirit. Don't create border buffer zones, guam to dilute it, this is taking USA to same level as other nations which it criticize for those violations.

In Continental law in few jurisdiction like Japan (what happened with Carlos Ghosn) and China they follow "Guilty until proven innocent". In this jurisdiction the prosecutor exercise control on whom to prosecute, because onus is on plaintiff to prove innocence through evidence.

Here the discussion is not about what is happening inside the country, but at the borders so surveillance state is not a question here.

If you have discussion on surveillance, China is a transparent surveillance where citizens are aware of it, USA with NSA is an opaque surveillance state. I am sure I don't want either of them, but if forced prefer a transparent than an opaque system.

they didn't pronounce these students "innocent" or "guilty."

this resembles the situation when a police officer arrests a US citizen. they do that thousands of times a day in the US without first determining innocence or guilt. it's just the first step. and US citizens are generally required to cooperate with law enforcement officer directives. the fact that police have certain, constitutionally limited powers doesn't mean the system has abandoned "innocent until proven guilty."

> they didn't pronounce these students "innocent" or "guilty."

Here student were already pronounced guilty and forcibly send back on return flight.

> this resembles the situation when a police officer arrests a US citizen.

Its not the same.

When a police officer arrests a US citizen, they need to grant him rights and access to lawyer. If they want to take away that right, they need to have a strong reason and apply patriot act or some specific law. If there is a wrong application of law the police officer and department can be sued for wrongful arrest.

Here the punishment has already been meted out by sending them back forcibly, without any due process, but based on border agents discretion.

Are there any countries that guarantee entry to every person unless a court denies that person entry? Is that a standard that any country adheres to?

The usual practice all over the world is that a visa very much guarantees entry to the country, if they deem you a security risk they won't even issue you a visa. Getting denied entry at the border is rare and usually the result of gross malfeasance.

Turning a whole group of foreign students back at the border is very unusual, and it's unclear why the government wants to increase legal insecurity and broadcast that it can't be trusted.

This indicates that entry to the US is not guaranteed by a visa:

Issuance of a visa does not guarantee entry to the United States. A visa simply indicates that a U.S. consular officer at an American embassy or consulate has reviewed the application and that officer has determined that the individual is eligible to enter the country for a specific purpose. The CBP Officer at the port-of-entry will conduct an inspection to determine if the individual is eligible for admission under U.S. immigration law.

https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/visa-waive...

>You mean there are two standards in USA one at the borders another in the country.

Yes. Also there are seperate policies and rules for citizens and non- citizens at the border.

>So all countries denying reporters, human rights workers or dissidents or protestors to enter their borders are doing it correct, because the rule of law is inside borders not outside.

This discussion pertains to entry into the US.

This discussion pertains to entry into the US

Most of the students will have been in the US before, they are continuing their degree and just went home for the summer. If the FBI or whoever has something on them they can apply for a warrant and have them arrested. But the government instead chose not to admit them at the border.

It goes the opposite way as well, if the student chooses not to leave the government has to find something of substance and convince a judge, just saying "I want you out" doesn't cover it. Nothing of this makes sense, and as far as national security goes, I find it hard to believe that students are permitted near classified data.

You don't know which government is the actor here. It could be that China revoked their travel privileges (i.e. for pro-HK activities). It's not like there's a blanket sanction against all Chinese students in progress.

And how's that supposed to work exactly? A court room in the airport to deal with all cases. That's simply not practical. You go through any border at any country, and if anything seems off, they have a duty to deny entry. That's the law and that's how it works.

>due to the fact agents must make educated or gut decisions.

That's one hell of an a priori you have there.

Agreeded, what is the alternative? Due process at the border? Do you see the hold up this will cause? We have an appeal process for entry denial.

Edit to add, citizens are entitled to due process while I am only referring to non-citizens

>Due process at the border?

yes

>Do you see the hold up this will cause?

Should we hold them in temporary confinement until we can complete their hearing, or just let them promice to return and plead their case?

They are in an international airport. People in an international airport are already in voluntary temporary confinement. If people want to plead their case, provide them a hotel and fly them back if they abandon it. It really shouldn't be hard unless the amount of people you are refusing who already possess visas is extremely high.

Isn't "innocent until proven guilty" a standard related to criminal punishment? This is merely denying someone entry to a country. That's quite a different outcome than a prison sentence.

For many people, such an outcome is basically exile. That’s different from prison but still pretty bad.

I thought exile meant that a person's country of citizenship is ejecting that person, making it illegal for that person to remain.

It just means that you’re not allowed to return home. Often, a person’a home doesn’t correspond to their country of citizenship.

What standard should a country have to meet in order to exile someone from what that person considers their home? What is the legal definition of home for these purposes? What are the rules that countries and individuals ought to adhere to?

The standard should be “beyond a reasonable doubt” as in criminal trials. The legal definition of home should probably match the legal definition of residency used for other purposes.

So, each of these cases would need to go to trial?

Right.

What should the punishment be for a government that fails to implement such a system? (e.g. UN censure? the imposition of economic sanctions? an invasion?)

I think we have to figure out the appropriate punishment for countries that enslave, torture, and murder people before we can figure out that. If we can’t even stop North Korea, what hope do we have of forcing other countries to have due process at border crossings?

Why do you ask?

i'm wondering how bad this is

I don’t see how the anarchic and deeply selfish world of international relations would shed any insight on that.

I think you’re trying to make a point with all these questions, but damned if I know what it is. Maybe you could just say it?

at this point i'm just trying to understand better what your proposed change to the system is. AFAICT, it's:

1. remove CBP's current right to summarily deny entry to visa holders (which is to say, remove that right from the aggregate of current US residents)

2. require the CBP (and thus current US residents) to argue all cases of entry denial at a trial in a court of law (after the visa holder has been granted free entry to the US)

3. expand the visa holder's right to include an inviolable guarantee to enter at the time of arrival (which might, in some cases, be revoked in the future, but only as the result of a court trial)

4. (possibly also, though I'm not sure you'd agree) provide government subsidized lawyers to all visa holders who may face a trial questioning their right to remain

Just to be perfectly clear: I’m not proposing anything in the realm of international relations trying to force countries to do anything.

Regarding your specific points:

1. Yes. Maybe only for resident visas (arbitrarily turning away tourists and people on temporary business sucks but is a lot less dire).

2. Yes on the trial. Not necessarily on granting entry in the interim. It would presumably work like any other trial: you’re held temporarily and then get a quick hearing which determines whether you’re released or not, and under what conditions.

3. I don’t see how this is different from #1.

4. Yes, this should be a criminal trial and the defendant should have all the rights due to a criminal defendant, including the right to a public defender.

Many countries will ask "have you ever been denied entry before to [any] country?", and proactively deny you entry. Seems a punishment to me, not necessarily a "mere" formality.

I chose the words "merely denying someone entry to a country" because to me it seems much less severe than a prison sentence and/or denial of possessions, and the imposition of a criminal record.

From the country's point of view, this policy seems like a conservative filter for entrants who might violate regulations, cause damage or even harm the existing residents. But, yes, there are false positives and false negatives to any such policy. And, of course, such a policy might include the provision for an appeal.

It's also important to understand that entry into the US is not a right for non-citizens and suspicion is generally enough reason to kick someone out at the border.

I don't think its fair, but traveling to another country you're not a citizen of you have no reason to expect fairness. We don't expect free access to other sovereign countries. For instance, and China has a long history of kicking out foreigners for arbitrary reasons, targeting foreign bars for random drug testing, etc, and this is considered acceptable because that's the law there. Here, we don't target foreigners/outsiders (laowai) so harshly. We treat foreigners way more kindly than most countries. We still give out tons of visas every year to allow people various opportunities. What the CBP can and can not do is also dictated by law as a security mandate. The law says people can be denied entry for a variety of reasons. Until we know those reasons, if we can possibly tell those reasons, there isn't much to say.

They did not target those 9, there were about 20-30 of them in the secondary room according to witnesses, all Chinese (but LAX is big so they might have a special Chinese secondary room, couldn’t clear that up). Only one university decided to come forward for now.

This behavior of CBP is highly unusual according to professionals.

I feel like the unreported yet actually interesting background here is that the Administration seems to have decided, for some reason, to pick a fight with the universities.

The reason that other institutions involved haven't come forward is likely because this kind of thing is terrible advertising for the international student industry.

I speculate that UCLA must be impacted (just size and in the west), but they had a Chinese student cheating ring scandal recently, so they probably will have a public perception if they come forwards. In a strongly sinophobe time, Americans believe all one billion Chineses are the same.

I can easily see sorting them out by language. While they no doubt spoke decent English CBP would want an inspector that could read Chinese to do the inspection.

Why would the US have problems with Hong Kong supporters?

I read it as the Chinese students could be targeting HK supporters / relatives at US universities.

Reminds me of the Chinese students protesting the Dalai Lama in Seattle. Poor brainwashed morons. I almost, but not quite, felt sorry for them.

>we should at least wait to see why exactly they were denied entry.

Is there any obligation for them to tell us that? Unless Arizona State continues bringing this up, we may not hear anything else.

> Look. The Feds don’t always have bad reasons for doing things.

This is true, but they've done nothing to deserve the benefit of the doubt, especially when they continue to conceal information. Right now, unfortunately, assuming malice until proven otherwise is the rational thing to do with CBP.

certainly not from a volume standpoint, since millions of people, including Chinese university students have no problems at the border.

Does volume matter here? I'd rather go with "times CBP were right". As in how many of the time they were involved, they got involved for the right reasons.

Hardly rational, considering these 9 are excluded while a large percentage of the ~360k or so Chinese students studying in the US (and the ~3 million Chinese tourists that come to the US every year) seem to be able to travel in and out of the US.

It's buzzword bingo. China + CBP = web traffic. It's hot right now, so this is a good article to write if you're interested in clicks.

The implication here that a policy change has happened is (thus far) false. These 9 people were flagged for some specific, long standing reason, and it's generally not news except for the buzzwords that make it "interesting".

The policy has changed, there is no precedent according to professionals. There were way more students flagged than that on that day, ASU is the only one coming forward for now. But they had never seen such a high secondary screening rate, detained for so long, such a weird return “deal”, nor that many visa revoked in a single day.

What do you mean weird return deal? Isn’t that a common practice when someone is found inadmissible? If nothing else is out of order, you’re given the chance to withdraw your request to enter the US.

After the visa as been revoked?

I thought normally the airline paid in this case?

I misunderstood.

It sounds like the airline must fly them back, but they can recover their costs from the passenger.

https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/23622/who-pays-fo...

The "weird deal" is this:

> told they needed to return to China, that they needed to pay for their own airline ticket to do so or face a ban from re-entering the U.S. for five years

It is not normal for a re-entry ban to made contingent on the traveler paying for the return ticket. Usually airlines are required by the government to pay for the return ticket and it is left up to the airlines to recover that cost from their passengers.

My guess would be either that

1) government officials are trying to avoid any legal conflict with airlines about the grounds on which entry was denied.

2) Airline lobby groups got this policy implemented to reduce their costs.

If you've got actual evidence the policy has changed, let's see it. This article has none, no one else has any, but if you've got new information, now is the time to come forward with it.

This is just the news tip of clicks iceberg. There will be dozens of opinion pieces released on this topic that are each tailored to different demographics; a headline for every political proclivity! Righteous outrage boners for all.

These opinion pieces will contain a bunch of factual errors and logical phalacies, but they are opinion pieces right? Except most people will just associate them with the news organizations that published them leaving them open to accusations of "fake news" from all sides and destroying the credibility of their news/investigative journalism.

My 2019 State of The Media Industrial Complex.

If you revoke someone's visa, refuse to tell them why (for days so far), and strongarm them into paying for their own return ticket, something is badly fucked up on a systemic level. It wouldn't matter if it was only one person.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com