French researcher denied entry for a personal opinion on Trump administration
lemonde.fr
lemonde.fr
I'm not implying anything, but anyone could have written a news piece like that.
It is too late for this. The common policy for researchers going to the US for conferences is to use a burner laptop with nothing but a PowerPoint file. That is the official requirements for public research institutions (which this person should have followed). Just like we do for China and we used to do for Russia. It does not make headlines every time, but a lot of us know a couple of people whose laptops were taken away for searching it. Personally I have also been using a burner phone for a few years (I should say that I had been, because all my scheduled trips to the US this year were cancelled).
> especially not the kind of shithole country where you have to be afraid not to offend dear leader
Before, providing social media handles was a nuisance (and I was never questioned about them). Now it’s scary.
Same for the questions about terrorism. It used to be funny and over the top, but if liking a post about Luigi Mangione is terrorism then it puts the whole thing in a quite different light.
The UK will deny entry over social media posts.
Let’s just please be factual.
edit: I see this has been now downvoted below zero, but the information posted here isn't in any of the official communications about it, so I think it's fair to ask where it came from, no?
"According to a diplomatic source to AFP, the incident occurred on March 9. The space researcher was reportedly subjected to a random check upon arrival, during which his work computer and personal phone were searched. The same source also reported that messages discussing the Trump administration's treatment of scientists were found. He was reportedly accused of messages "that reflect hatred toward Trump and can be described as terrorism ." His professional and personal equipment was reportedly confiscated, and the researcher was sent back to Europe the next day."
> "I learned with concern that a French researcher" on assignment for the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) "who was traveling to a conference near Houston was denied entry to the United States before being expelled ," said the Minister of Higher Education and Research, Philippe Baptiste, in a statement sent to Agence France-Presse (AFP). "This measure was apparently taken by the American authorities because the researcher's phone contained exchanges with colleagues and friends in which he expressed a personal opinion on the Trump administration's research policy ," he added.
At some point we're going to have to debate where to run "western" scientific conferences. I can see Europe/Canada and US/Russia blocs emerging, I'm curious with whom other countries will align.
It isn't enough for me to draw a conclusion, but it's enough for me to question this story which so far has only one side represented. If this comes down to the academic in question making social media posts that tripped FBI/Secret Service's "talking about killing the POTUS" or something similar, then yeah that's going to potentially raise flags at the border.
The rules don't change along with the president after all, just like people doing the same thing with Biden or Obama would have raised flags, this would too.
To be sure we'll have to wait and see the messages that are the focus of concern. What bothers me is that so many here are simply running with the headline and turning off their critical thinking because they (understandably) hate Trump's guts.
Note, too that last month two researchers (yes, actual researchers) threw bombs at a Russian consulate in France, so the argument that messages are just banter among friends and that academics would never actually do anything 'stupid' has been severely weakened.
I think it would provide better intelligence if the more casual criticisms of policy were ignored and more attention paid to violent/threatening content. This would allow authorities to focus attention on other people involved in the communication which would probably be of more benefit than trying to target all visitors that disagree with policies.
Example: Gary Marcus wrote six weeks ago, «single-minded obsession with cutting costs is going to cripple science and American universities, with horrific lasting consequences» - that falls into your «...actions being horrible for research», but how does it fit with your statement of a "good case".
https://www.newsweek.com/french-scientist-banned-us-entry-me...
> The arrest continues a reported trend of temporary visa holders and visitors being detained by U.S. border officials on their way into the country amid heightened immigration enforcement under the Trump administration and concerns that free speech is no longer a defense when it comes to legal immigration status. // [...] U.S. authorities saw these messages as "hate and conspiracy messages," which prompted an FBI investigation that was later dropped. However, the researcher was sent back to France. // CBP's move to deny entry to a foreign national seemingly solely based on their opinion of the president, rather than necessarily expressing ill will or intentions to harm him, comes amid increased scrutiny of those entering the country. // Legal permanent residents, along with those on work-based visas, have been questioned, detained and even removed from the country in recent weeks, including two German tourists and a Canadian woman trying to renew her visa at the southwest border. // Immigration attorneys have begun advising clients to ensure their social media profiles are free of criticism of the administration and images that could be seen as inappropriate or in support of ideas that do not fit with current U.S. foreign policy.
I'm confused: after all, on which bank of the Seine are the snowflakes?
A shame, as wanted to drive the Californian coastal roads in a year or two ... guess I'll stick to the Alps.
But let's be honest. Even I was let in, I wouldn't choose to now and ... I guess perhaps forever. Many many good people in the USA but your democracy has spoken. You want Biff in charge and no one wants to be a part of that.
Tofino, or Haida Gwaii.
Its easy to give your citizens free healthcare and college when taxpayers over in America forgo all of that to subsidize your country's security.
Are you really claiming that if the US stopped subsidizing security overseas, American voters and politicians would suddenly begin to support "free healthcare and college" in the US? Your claim is that it's a _budget issue_?
Use that as a reminder that you no longer live in a true representative republic or anything like it, no matter what superficial performative aspects remain. Fundamentally, the USA is now ruled by a King, not a President.
It will remind you of this fun law: https://amp.abc.net.au/article/104135048
It will remind you of what conservatives (“the right”) are fundamentally about: conserving the power of the king and keeping the accumulated wealth of the nobility safe.
You’re watching the birth of a new American Empire of North Pacifica that includes the Kingdom of Canada, the Kingdom of Panama and the Kingdom of Greenland. These will be ruled by princes and princesses that all have the Trump surname.
Again, remember, that the King is openly calling for war to enlarge his kingdom into an empire and the nobles are falling in line.
No one has dared question this or to depose the king.
If the king wills it, then war it is.
I must warn you, though, that the drives remain undercurrents moving in history, and also Europe is living them: do note for example that the idea of "being tracked in all your monetary transactions """for some common good""" " is the translation of free people into "subjects". So: there are concepts about the population and the State that get instantiated in history by political forces and general powers.
One major risk of a peaceful protest that has even a small amount of violence (property damage, etc) is that Trump actively wants to call out the military to break some skulls... and if there is violence, it's hard for the larger community to support the protests (even if the vast majority of people are simply expressing their legal rights to push back against what appears to be a truly tyrannical, unconstitutional government).
The real problem isn't Trump, it's the huge number of Americans who think what's happening is great. I don't know how you fix that.
Are you kidding?
What's the rate of "accidental" defenestrations amongst billionaires in Russia?
One in ten or so?
Arbitrarily searching and refusing foreign nationals at the border was always an executive power and we have temporarily chosen one who despises anyone not loyal to him. We get to reap the consequences for the next four years.
The extremely vague guidance was in part because SCOTUS only tries to rule on what is in front of them and also because they want any immunity decision to go through them.
Your posting here is akin to a boiling frog insisting to all the other frogs in the pot that they'll all know when the water is too hot, so they should not worry.
I just find that an obtuse response that completely looks past the post its responding to without even acknowledging that fact is a bit disingenuous but, I guess feel free to convince me otherwise if you'd like. I see a lot of your posts in this thread arguing how things will be okay and we aren't in a constitutional crisis yet but that doesn't seem to be a great response to the point that it looks like Trump is driving imminently towards one. Feel free to let me know what I'm missing.
I understand that my emphasizing a difference between 'driving toward a crisis' and being in the midst of one may seem like splitting hairs but I hope it isn't.
If you take Trump at his word, the crisis is certain. But he bloviates constantly. He might try to disassemble democracy or ignore a SCOTUS decision. But he might back down. He's in a pretty decent spot and it doesn't make sense to risk it all on a few deportations or civil service firings.
So I disagree with the certainty of a constitutional crisis and hope it sounds well-reasoned. Remember this is the guy who promised to fix the budget deficit, crime, immigration, healthcare...
To your original point, I reiterate that the immunity decision - while terrible - doesn't grant the president any additional powers. It simply allows him to test the limits of existing authorities without legal consequence. Ignoring court orders is still illegal and SCOTUS did not change that in Trump v. US. I am not sure why saying this "missed the point" unless the point was to underscore the urgency of the situation.
But mandamus orders against the executive really can't be enforced by the courts, not even the writ of Habeas Corpus -- and famously so, I might add, since Lincoln suspended the writ even though the Constitution says only Congress can do it, and he refused to bring people accused of sabotage or insurrection to the courts.
1. Executive power has limits. E.g. civil litigation and state law are largely outside his jurisdiction.
2. Agents of the government must follow the law, even if it contradicts an exective order. They open themselves to criminal liability if they don't.
3. Congress. Haha just kidding that's only in the timeline where Harambe is still alive.
2. Minions jailed for illegal activities
3. Pardon minions, law-abiding judicial forces to drop prosection
4. Go to 1
If this is allowed, sooner than later the US will start to deny entry to all "undesirables", which translates to those that aren't 100% aligned with MAGA policies.
Just demand access to all phone data, run the data through some AI screening tool, which maps the data to some 2-D "desirability" scale.
Disagrees with Trump? No entry
Not opposed to LGBTQ topics? No entry
Reads too many left-leaning newspapers? No entry
And the list goes on.
I guess the (now at least 10 year old) tip still rings true: Travel with a burner phone, or some phone that you use minimally for anything other than travel.
Right now it's an unflattering opinion of the current administration, being penalized without regard for the combined precedent of all previous administrations.
The kind of precedent that was within reach of all other US presidents from all parties continuously both before & after the Statue of Liberty got here, otherwise there wouldn't have been enough respect built in Europe for Liberty to be erected to begin with. It was obviously supposed to be a permanent icon representing the never-ending March of Freedom & Democracy, and only a real bozo could screw that up.
Yup, only an anti-American effort of some kind could drop the ball on that, and it's no accident.
What does it take before the same penalty applies for "lack of verifiable enthusiastic support of the current regime"?
Or "failure to make financial contributions to the party"?
Or even "providing insufficient information on associates who may not enthusiastically support the regime"?
It was pretty clear for a long time that this stuff was ripe for abuse, and the President's own choices were the only thing preventing it from being abused more than it was.
Well, you put a fundamentally terrible* and vindictive person in that office, and surprise, he abuses this power. One of his first acts in office in 2017 was to abuse his ability to unilaterally dictate which foreigners are allowed to enter the country, no surprise it's even worse now. Despite this, there has been pretty much zero serious advocacy for restraining the power of the executive.
*All US presidents are terrible to some degree or another, but normally it's "I know what's best for the country and I'm willing to kill for it." Which isn't great, but it's better than this.
This isn't whataboutism. It's pointing out why you don't give individuals huge amounts of power and hope they're cool.
Delegating tariff authority to the executive: an arguably constitutional thing that Congress did deliberately and with due caution, which courts have gone along with.
Rendering lawful residents from U.S. soil to slave camps in foreign nations: no basis in statute or jurisprudence.
Delegating immigration rules is what led to the immigration abuses.
If Congress had refrained from delegating so much power to the executive, this particular executive would not be able to do so much terrible stuff. This is exactly why a lot of people said that it was a bad idea to do that, but Congress was content to assume that the President would wield this power wisely.
I used to do that and luckily they never asked to unlock them. What will happen now is anyone’s guess, but it is very difficult to imagine that the current shambles won’t embolden power-tripping border cops. There are reports of tourists being held in chains and being held in detention for days.
> I would be afraid to offer any more suspicion of hiding sth
So would I, which is why I won’t be going to the US anytime soon. It’ll be a shame not to see my American friends.
Border protection officers have always had a lot of power. Before, there was an understanding that they would behave sensibly and everything was predictable: if you had a visa or a waiver, you were in. Now, who can say?
Another view is that one of the few idealogical commitments of this administration is global bullies doing favors for each other. It's not totally clear to me which direction the favor lies in this one, but I think both sides expect it to be returned at some point.
Attacking the country to which you owe allegiance is a well-understood crime with normative punishments that we have used in living memory. We already have all the carceral tools we need to resolve this.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/world-news/diplomatic-row-french-trump...
> [...] Following his detainment, it's reported that his professional and personal equipment was reportedly confiscated, and the researcher was sent back to Europe the next day.
No? Oh okay.
If I'm not in front of a tribunal, formerly accused of committing/attempting to commit a crime, who are you to check my private chats?
This is not a problem with some messages' content. It's a privacy problem.
Would people here be happy if the USA (or any other country, for that matter) had the authority to record all your private conversations with friends at the bar and use them against you?
CBP in the U.S. and equivalents pretty much everywhere deny foreigners the right to privacy. Heck, even in the U.S. the Fourth Amendment is taken to not apply at the border and ports of entry (and within 100 miles of any such, including the coasts!!). I too think that's quite a stretch, but that's how it is, and not just in the U.S.
I think there have been cases of CBP refusing entry to people who didn't even have smartphones with them.
So I agree that it is a privacy problem.
However given that we all have very little privacy when entering a country (even our own) the contents of this researcher's messages is relevant to deciding whether CBP acted reasonably even though we might say (I do) that CBP should never ask to see your communications without probable cause that you've committed or intend to commit a crime.
I can't do that when entering any other country, of course, but they seem to be much less likely to try it.
You might want to consider whether your definition and the government's definition of "briefly" agrees.
For example Carlos Rios, a naturalized U.S. citizen was held for a week before being released. Peter Sean Brown, another U.S. citizen born in Philadelphia was detained for three weeks. Source: https://www.propublica.org/article/more-americans-will-be-ca...
They're not refusing entry or holding citizens indefinitely for refusing to unlock their phones at the border. Maybe they will, but until it starts, what I said holds.
If that is the case here then I really doubt the researcher was told that they have been denied entry due to their personal opinions on the Trump administration. This really just leaves us to speculate.
Would a researcher who said something like "J6 should have gone all the way" have been denied entry in 2021? I suspect they would have, and that many would have cheered that refusal.
On what basis do you have for this belief? Frankly, I think that's facially ridiculous.