Phone searches at the US border hit a record high
wired.com
wired.com
Abolishing "everything under" the DHS would do incredible damage. The various agencies lumped under the DHS could plausibly be re-organized again, though I'm not sure it would serve much purpose.
The biggest problem is that voters keep putting incompetent ideologues in charge of the federal government.
As we're seeing with cuts to anything other than programs enabling masked, jackbooted thugs to beat/harass/disappear brown people.
The fix to this is to swap out the nation's leaders, not to throw away every governmental institution with any relation to public safety.
Right, and funding for customs inspections, FEMA disaster assistance and the Coast Guard are all already being cut in favor of jackbooted thugs.
>The fix to this is to swap out the nation's leaders, not to throw away every governmental institution with any relation to public safety.
I never suggested that DHS should be abolished. That was someone else[0].
You might take that up with them instead.
A country that so hates its own constitutional democracy cannot possibly support the democracy of other nations.
I'm no fan of being Israel's sugar daddy but that's a gross mis-characterization of the situation.
The terrorism landscape of the 80s through 2010s has to do with the cold war, the post-colonial governments of the middle east, etc, etc. It's not a simple problem.
But yeah we should def stop supporting Israel. Not our sandbox, not our problem.
It's the same folks who invented the word for the phenomenon we're currently discussing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence)
Ugh, mostly the British and the French though I supposed Ike got conned into helping the Brits with one of them.
>Who destabilized middle eastern countries to create an opening for those governments to take power?
rofl, everyone, but mostly their neighbors
>Who funded the groups who ended up taking power?
Same answer as above.
But I get it, reality is complex and "murka bad" is simple. If you want that narrative stick to latin america.
You just agreed that the Western world is largely behind the blowback, so why are you still dismissing it? Yeah, it's complex and largely predicated on the interests of the West, to the detriment of the citizens of the ME. Do you have something to add?
Edit: I see you're editing your response to address the points in this post. I'll wait till you're done to respond again.
> If you want that narrative stick to latin america.
You're again agreeing with me but trying to make it seem like you're not? Yeah agreed, the history of Western intervention in Latin America is horrific. You should see what they've been doing in the Middle East!
Your opinion here is overly broad and reductive to the point of being stupid and wrong. The nations of the middle east have fucked with each other more than anyone has fucked with them in the past 50yr, though of course they all seek and sometimes get outside aid when doing so.
Bin Laden had a famous quote that translates to "the americans are bad and the shia are worse". I think that sums a typical local attitude up pretty well.
Ok, then you should adopt a position contrary to mine.
Again, I agree that the ME is complex, but I'm not sure how that disputes the fact that the Western world has meddled in their affairs and destabilized ME countries to the point that they can no longer function independently and fall to authoritarian governments (or have one installed).
> The nations of the middle east have fucked with each other more than anyone has fucked with them in the past 50yr
Yes, their neighbors have "fucked with them," but the West has "fucked with them" more and caused more lasting damage.
For example, in the past 50 years, the US has overthrown the government of Iran, materially supported both belligerents in the Iran-Iraq war, trained and funded and provided material support to militias in Syria and Yemen (including non-stop drone strikes for literally years), supported Israel apartheid unconditionally, invaded Iraq twice, not to mention the 20 year wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which have completely gutted those countries ability to self-govern. Even internal conflicts in the Middle East are stoked and backed by Western powers.
Also funny that you mention bin Laden, he's a good example of blowback resulting from US intervention.
1) support for the existence of Israel: just the idea of it, not necessarily the finer points, like whether it should coexist with an Arab Palestinian state. Zionism, whether it meant only taking up part of what was Mandatory Palestine, or all of it, flew directly in the face of the idea of pan-Arabism and Islamic theocratic chauvinism.
2) the Saudi royal family's request that the US-led coalition defend Saudi Arabia during the Persian Gulf War - that was something that Usama bin Laden really hated, as he thought that it should be on the Saudis themselves and Islam as a whole to defend its birthplace, not some Western power.
The whole "support democracy" thing has been a ruse for a while now. Democracy has become a synonym for "human rights", and that's always been for sale. Not just in the US, either. The last 35 years have been characterized by exporting economic infrastructure from the US (and West at large) to a place that specifically does not support democracy because, hey, it's cheaper to make stuff there, and line need go up.
Hell, touching on the Middle East, the only reason the region has a seat at the international table at all is because we're willing to look past the abysmal human rights record so long as the oil stays cheap. Otherwise it's a bunch of arid land with very strict rules. Not exactly the kind of place progress and development flock to.
This isn't just an American thing, but it's certainly applicable here.
As far as I understand, there's 3 categories here, citizens, non-citizen residents, and non-citizens non-residents.
The greatest spikes in constitutional and legal rights and guarantees come from being a resident. Being a citizen gives you political rights like voting and participating in the three branches sure, but for the average man it's nothing compared to the rights bestowed by simply walking down a street freely and engaging in free commerce.
This might be one of those restrictions of freedom that allow for greater freedoms to be guaranteed down the line.
Once a non citizen goes through the border, they enjoy a huge spike in rights and guarantees, if you losen the border, you dilute the rights of the residents and citizens, and you add costs (especially if you let aliens in that don't even pay taxes, enjoying only rights but no responsibility)
Ironically, if you value your freedoms as a resident, you should value restricting freedoms at the border.
Similar to how GPL briefly restricts user rights by requiring them to share the source code.
Can you clarify this? This doesn't make any sense to me. Freedoms like those granted in the US bill of rights are specifically designed to be universally applied regardless of citizenship status as long as you are within the geographical boundaries of the US or otherwise subject to it's jurisdiction, from my understanding.
So just by crossing the line into the US a person would enjoy almost all of the rights of a citizen. But critically, they don't have these rights BEFORE crossing the border, the border control is the point at which those rights are granted.
IANAL
And all persons in the United States, regardless of status have essentially had their civil liberties significantly curtailed/removed within 100 miles of a border crossing[0].
You might think, "well we need to catch those folks who illegally cross the border, so we need a buffer zone to do so." But the wording (and more importantly the implementation) of these "border zones" include all points of entry like airports. Which means that civil liberties are negated/limited within 100 miles of airports where international flights land.
Which creates reduced civil rights zones around the majority of the US population. Meaning that if I'm within 100 miles of Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International airport (which is many hundreds of miles away from any land border, as are most International airports), civil rights for all persons, citizen, resident or otherwise, are curtailed -- permanently and without recourse.
In the same manner that you shouldn't expect to conduct everyday business near the border of a country or near military operations or near power plant facilities, maybe we will start treating airports with such a respect. Yes sir, no sir, don't say "bomb" as a joke, etc...
Sure, you can fight for your rights against government oppression, but I think that resisting control just provides an alibi for illegal actors, and on the converse, cooperating reduces the need for excessive measures by making it easy to identify adversarial actors that do not cooperate.
It's a matter of subjective values, what do you think is more dangerous, an overzealous government or power plant disasters? I think we should be more concerned about power plant disasters, so I will not go exercise my rights near a power plant. Similarly, what do I think is more important, fighting drug trade and tax evasion? Or hiding my porn purchases from my banker? I think fighting drug trade and tax evasion are more important, so I try not to use cryptocurrency for porn purchases. Similarly, I think terrorism and illegal immigration are more important than border officers looking at my personal messages. And no you cannot have it both ways, you either cooperate and help one side, or you refuse to cooperate and provide alibies for enemies of the state.
We have not discussed at this point what your values are, I do not know whether you think drug trading or theft or tax evasion, or terrorism are ok, or child pornography, I presume not, it is more likely you are an individual concerned about personal privacy, but consider that I have no way to distinguish whether you support any of the above, and when you speak with people who support your right to privacy, or more so, individuals that try to convince you that your privacy is of utmost importance, consider whether they themselves are guilty of one of these crimes? Think of which side you are on, whether by being guilty of one crime, you are associating with a coalition of slightly guilty citizens, or whether a couple of your pseudonymous friends are actually massively criminal and your behaviour pooling protects them.
We can also acknowledge that there exists a conflict and a tradeoff between personal liberties and crime countermeasures. And that tradeoff is everchanging, post-911 lots of people would have agreed that some personal liberties needed to be sacrificed, and many would agree that eventually we overcorrected and needed to dial it back. We had a period of peace in the middle where some crimes were mostly used as a symbol for "criminals", but nowadays we have a lot of war going on, how sure are you that your peers in crypto exchanges are not involved with war trade? I don't think drone trade is being done with fiat trade at all. International drug trade probably uses crypto exchanges, offshore accounts, and undoubtedly smugglers cross borders as well.
Have you ever considered how your role in drug trade, child abuse, and war? I'm making no claims that exercising your constitutional rights "helps" or "fights" crime (I find it reasonable that if I make such moral objections, you might be forced to exercise the rights to protect them), but provided that those rights are recognized and guaranteed, consider whether they must always be exercised to the extreme? If you were able to forfeit some of your rights and help fight crime, wouldn't you do it? It is one of the most extreme forms of liberties to sacrifice it, to always instinctively exhert your rights in any opportunity possible is actually a sign that the right is in trouble, and therefore I would claim that since I can occasionally forfeit my right to not being searched, I have a stronger form of freedom (in that sense, you may have more freedom in others).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z6vsYELcjw
Here's a scene from Mad Men that I like on the subject. The main character (very right wing traditional) is in the middle of a pot smoking beatnik party. The beatniks are exercising their right to not be searched in their private domicile, and they are partaking in a somewhat harmless illegal activity, but in doing so the police outside of their building becomes the enemy, instead of an ally that is investigating a crime. Not only is the Beatnik placed on the same 'side' as a night-time gunfighter, but also their exercise of their liberty to smoke weed interferes with their liberty to just go outside of their apartment. The main character smoking the legal herb I think cements the bipartisan political divide and their relationship with the law.
Data and logic are great and all, but I wouldn't sleep on art as a means to think.
No we haven't. You know why? Because it ain't any of your business, that's why.
And it ain't the government's business either.
What I think and/or believe is my business. Who and how I choose to share that with is also my business and anything else you or I have to say is irrelevant.
As for what I do, that's a different discussion. It's also none of your business, except as those actions impact or influence you.
in contrast, the government sometimes (often?) does have an interest and, potentially, a role in what people, myself included, do.
Strip searching tourists, interrogating them about which social media jokes they shared, or locking them up for weeks without charges and then deporting them based on nothing more than their political views does not strengthen the rights of residents.
> especially if you let aliens in that don't even pay taxes, enjoying only rights but no responsibility
If you are talking about people working in the US without visas, this is a serious misconception. The large majority of undocumented people working in the US pay the same taxes as anyone else, including income and payroll taxes (sometimes under a borrowed social security number, but sometimes with an ITIN, "individual taxpayer ID no."; the IRS is happy to take the money without worrying about immigration status), but don't reap the benefits of those. So it's rather the opposite: all the responsibilities but dramatically fewer rights. In aggregate, undocumented immigrants pay on the order of $100 billion of US taxes every year.
Searching phones is not really related to reviewing social media is it? You don't need to search a phone to access a public profile. No, searching a phone searches for private messages, maybe you talked with an employer on the US and you are on a tourist visa? Maybe there's talks about drug use or money laundering? or worse?
>If you are talking about people working in the US without visas, this is a serious misconception.
You talk as if there were some sort of authorative objective dataset, but by nature, how can you measure unreported income?
You can search for FUTON sources all you want, but I've worked with immigrants that don't report income on my country. And just because something "doesn't happen" would be a terribe reason not to protect against it.
Would you leave your port 22 open without password just because "it is a misconception" that russians are brute forcing into systems? No, you would simply protect against it, you don't need evidence to implement security mesaures.
Citizen also take cash jobs and don't report the income, yet they have more options and access to resources. Unlike undocumented persons. I'm guessing you feel the same about citizens dodging their tax responsibilities at least as strongly as you do undocumented workers. See the end for a solution, for the undocumented at least.
See [0] for a breakdown of taxes and contributions.$19.5B in Federal Income tax, $32.3B in Social Insurances taxes payed through automatic withholding from their paychecks in 2022. They are not getting jobs where they would owe at the end of the year. They pay the same sales and excise taxes on goods and services, property taxes on renting/owning etc. $96.7B total taxes paid in 2022.
Some use "borrowed" SSN (usually provided by the employer or employer referred source), they don't get to file for a refund; some use ITINs and are also likely forgo refunds thus pay more taxes than a similarly employed citizen while losing out on benefits they are supposedly "stealing". They have no way to access social security.
A 2006 study showed they contributed so much to Texas' GDP that Texas refuses to conduct further studies on their economic impact [1] A Texas economic analysis firm in 2016 estimated a contribution of $11.8B to the state after subtracting $3.1 B the state spent for their health, education, other public services.[2]
The simple solution is access to work authorization. They trade being exploited by employers to paying more taxes for that security. If citizens wanted the jobs they do we would not have a chronic shortage of workers in those positions, Notably hospice and construction.
[0] https://itep.org/undocumented-immigrants-taxes-2024/
[1] https://www.texastribune.org/2024/12/06/texas-undocumented-i...
[2] https://www.perrymangroup.com/media/uploads/report/perryman-...
No, it's not the same. Immigrants can be deported, which is not the case for citizens by birthright. Additionally birthright citizens have not opted to be born in their country, however immigrants have made the choice to be in their country of destiny, so they are in a much weaker moral and legal position to justify tax evasion.
Not the same at all.
Lucky for you there is a solution to your gripe, allow work authorization so immigrants can pay their taxes without fear of deportation to a 3rd country prison. Not much to do about my gripe with freeloading citizens who the rest of us end up paying more for. Even undocumented workers pay a higher percent of taxes than citizens in some 40 states, so I guess good thing they are here to help making up for those free loading citizens as well. See [0] above
Have I got news for you...
Not everything needs a double-blind randomized longitudinal trial, sometimes you just need to act instead of being paralyzed by overanalysis of the obvious.
The US Constitution applies to persons within US jurisdiction.
The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. This protection extends to individuals' persons, houses, papers, and effects.
I am not a lawyer, but I think that's pretty undisputed and basic.
I and a whole bunch of lawyers do dispute that claim[0].
There may not be consensus on where the border is binary, or whether it's phased, whether it's 100 miles thick or 1 centimeter thick, whether it's here or there. But we have consensus that there exists a border and that you can people that have not yet entered do not have the constitutional rights of persons in the jursidiction yet.
The most surprising thing to me is that people that are by most measures intelligent are falling for it hook, line, and sinker.
About half of Americans apparently don't have a passport and according to other sources I found only about <30% of Americans have travelled internationally in the past year.
So I imagine this revocation of freedom doesn't affect everyone equally. Presumably things are still mostly fine for those folks or at least they wouldn't have experienced it.
So, you could conceivably be a citizen, but CBP/ICE think you might be here illegally, so they can stop you without a warrant. How are you going to prove you're a citizen? There is no national ID, passports aren't required nor are they held by the majority of citizens, and unless something has changed, green card holders / permanent residents aren't required to carry their papers.
I agree with your larger overall point, but this specific part isn't true.
Nothing has changed recently, but green card holders/permanents residents (over the age of 18) have been required to carry their green card with them since a long time ago (since the implementation of the Alien Registration Act of 1940, according to Google). I remember back when I got mine in 2012, it was a requirement as well (though, I will admit, it was not really enforced).
Here is the relevant quote from Section 264(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (I.N.A.)[0] addressing this:
> Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d). Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.
And here[1] is an additional resource confirming this.
0. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid%3AUSC-prel...
1. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/do-i-really-need-car...
That's terrible advice, please stop giving terrible advice like that. ICE need to have probable cause (about you specifically, by name, not just your street or zipcode or "people of your ethnicity/appearance" or "people in that store/restaurant/parking lot"), beyond a verbal "uhh we think you're here illegally". You have the right to ask them why. And the 4th Amdt still exists, for all people, so no they can't stop you in your vehicle or inside your own house without probable cause and a [signed, valid] warrant [naming you specifically, and signed by a judge].
> How are you going to prove you're a citizen?
If you're a citizen, you can simply state to them you're a citizen (better when you're on bodycam; and repeat it (on bodycam) to any other ICE officials you interact with, and make mental note of their names or else descriptions so you can subsequently identify them). Pragmatically, you could also identify yourself as such to any bystanders or anyone videoing things.
"U.S. citizens do not have to carry proof of citizenship if they are in the U.S." [0] Read that again and again. Ok?
For sure ICE could knowingly violate a citizen's rights, detain them unlawfully (for hours or days), beat them up, send them to a detention center, even (in very rare cases) deport them. That becomes a political as much as legal matter. If you have constitutional/legal rights and due-process but refuse to stand up for them, do those rights functionally cease to exist? Do they magically get restored in 2029(/2033)? Time to stop being complacent.
(Obviously noncitizens do not have all the above protections, and need to be more careful.)
In the meantime, to inform yourself about your rights, and to get advice how to deal with ICE, both for citizens, GC holders, visa holders, visitors and undocumented people, see: https://www.aclu.org/ or other webinars. But, stop speculating or spreading misinformation. If you don't know, ask here.
[0]: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/immigrants-rights
This is technically true but in practice (as we've seen multiple times recently), if ICE wants to stop you or interrogate you or even arrest you, they will do so without a warrant.
Sure, and most Americans have never had their speech censored by a government entity so getting rid of the first amendment would be fine for most people.
30% sounds insanely high. I suspect at least half of Americans haven't even taken a _vacation_ in the past year, let alone _travelled internationally_.
> Approximately 40 million Americans travel abroad each year. This figure represents about 12% of the U.S. population. Travel data reveals that Americans commonly visit destinations in Europe, Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean.
Source: https://travelpander.com/how-many-americans-travel-abroad/
> In the past year, the poll of 2,000 U.S. travelers, conducted by Talker Research, found 94% have traveled domestically, and 28% have traveled internationally.
source: https://www.myjournalcourier.com/features/article/unpacking-...
passport to resident ratio usa, 1989-2023:
https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/44102530-5b24-467a-8510-c...
Even if I happen not to hold any particularly radical political opinions, if political speech is censored, my rights of free expression are also decreased. I may not practice a minority religion, but if the state systemically attacks one religion, my freedom of religion is also attacked.
The same is no less true for the 4th amendment; I may not be a target of the police at the current moment, but if they have the ability to search and take stuff at will, I am still less free.
Sadly that's usual for learning such things first hand.
The ABF are empowered to search any electronic devices, copy and retain its contents.
You can refuse, after which they are empowered to jail you and seize your belongings.
Sorry but I'm not seeing the connection between searching belongings whilst crossing an international border to the mass genocide of 6M people.
Or you can vote with your feet and stop going there.
> Sorry but I'm not seeing the connection between searching belongings whilst crossing an international border to the mass genocide of 6M people.
Nazism did not start with genocide. It ended with genocide. If your position is that as long as we haven't seen the death of 6M people then sure, you're right this isn't Nazism. But if you see the endless propaganda, the creations of large 'outgroups' and the building of actual concentration camps as possibly leading in that direction then now would be a good time to do something about it. Otherwise you'll be in a long line of people saying 'wir haben es nicht gewusst' in a couple of years. But you did.
See for yourself: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...
I know there were exceptions for Yugoslavians and others but in general, for especially USSR citizens and Western German citizens, the flow of people across the iron curtain was incredibly regulated and especially soviets trying to flee east Germany were regularly executed. So please spare me your diatribe.
The guards, if they chose to at any time, could have detained you and questioned you. The police could have searched you at any time anywhere in the USSR whether you were a citizen or not.
In Russia this is still the case to this day.
Of course all sovereign countries, whether "bad or not" reserve the right to search anything you seek to drag into their borders. This goes without saying! No country is under an obligation to host you, you are a guest.
And no country has to subject itself to sabotage, political incitement, criminal activity, foreign lobbying, espionage, etc, from foreigners. Period.
You don't have a right to import anything in to any country without it being potentially searched. That is called border control. Every country does it to some extent, some more thoroughly than others.
That's incorrect (per the ACLU post in the sibling comment) - it just happens that many major airports are within the 100 mile zone, so CBP/ICE can run operations there (beyond what they might run at an airport well inside the heartland).
Fingers crossed I'll nerd snipe someone here into finding it.
Non-coastal cities that fall within the zone where I wouldn't really expect a border check (ignoring the big cities Houston)... Charlottesville, VA Sacramento, CA Portland, OR Madison, WI Syracuse, NY
For example, in New Zealand, you can be fined $5000 if you do not unlock your phone at the border, and later still compelled to unlock it. The US does not have any fines or laws to compel access. Of course, in any country, refusing the orders of a customs official will get you banned from the country, so that's a strong enough incentive for most tourists.
In terms of frequency: New Zealand searches 671 devices per year on 3M tourists, the US searches 46k/yr on 72M tourists, Australia 8.3k/yr on 6M tourists. That works out to 671/3M tourists is 0.02%, 46k/72M tourists is 0.06% and 8.3k/6M tourists is 0.14%.
Personally, I have fought against these searches for nearly my entire life. But to pretend that the US is on some sort of unique authoritarian slide is laughable. In the UK, today, most forms of protest are illegal. The EU has mandated cellular devices which record your car's location - on every new car. We should stand united against authoritarianism worldwide, not divided and pointing and laughing at each other in some sort of sad petty tribalism. I don't want to score cheap points on the internet, I want all people worldwide to enjoy liberty and privacy. United we stand, divided we fall.
When something like Chat Control, mandatory cellular location recording devices in cars, anti-encryption laws, elimination of the right to protest in the UK, etc happens, the American response is to shake their heads and do much the same.
I don't find that productive. That sort of division is toxic. And the broader strategy - provoking us to hate our brothers across the Atlantic - has long been a core strategy of the enemies of Western civilization.
A small island state in the south Pacific, close only to Aus & Antartic penguins, doesn't need or care about your data.
An outpost of the wasp empire, without constitutional impediments getting the way, ABSOLUTELY DOES want to hoover up as much data that passes through it as possible.
Which do you think NZ is? "5 eyes" has the membership it has, for a reason.
So yes, as the centre of this unholy empire, the US is involved, and responsible.
This is not to justify any part of modern surveillance, which I have protested against for many years. Nor is it to dodge US responsibility.
Back to the topic we're discussing - border phone searches - the US surveils their own citizens far less than the other Anglo countries. 22% of the searches were of US citizens, while US citizens make up a bit over half of border crossings. Australian citizens make up a similar proportion of Australian border crossings, but 42% of searches were of Australian citizens. Combine that with the figures above, and an Australian citizen going home has about a 4x higher chance of getting their phone searched than an American citizen. Very roughly, 0.025% vs 0.11%.
If you believe that, then you probably inhabit a parallel universe where Epstein wasn't an Israeli asset, and where he really did kill himself.
In which case, keep calm & carry on...
It is, but maybe you just haven't been paying close enough attention. Device scanning at the border is not the only indication of this, there are many. Masked federal agents arresting anyone they want without any warrant and then sending them to prisons in foreign countries without due process, should be ringing authoritarian alarm bells for everyone, including you.
For that level of risk I'd rather go see Shenzhen frankly.
Land of the free?
Forecasts apparently still show an increase in international visitors overall (unsure of the split between tourists and business visits).
But, May numbers appear to be down about 7% compared to May 2024.
The report says the visit count (MAU?) in July is down 18% vs last year. Since I can't think of any local issue (fire, flood, weather...) that would have had an affect on visitor count this year vs last, that seems quite a large change. Especially when the fact that only a proportion of visitors are not from the US.
https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/Park%20Specific%20Rep...
https://nypost.com/2025/07/25/us-news/foreign-tourism-to-nyc...
https://www.timeout.com/newyork/news/nyc-will-see-a-17-perce...
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/08/nyregion/nyc-tourism.html
https://vinnews.com/2025/07/25/foreign-tourism-to-nyc-faces-...
https://columbianewsservice.com/2025/06/04/new-york-city-see...
https://tjvnews.com/local/new-york/new-york-city-faces-4-bil...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_derangement_syndrome
And if they don't like your answers, they can detain you without charge indefinitely and then deport you -- and not necessarily to your home country.
It's a bad idea to come to the US -- for any reason -- at this time.
N.B.: I say that as an American living in the US. What's more, my father was an immigrant (who never became a citizen) and my mother's parents were also immigrants. As such, were it not for immigration, I would not exist as my parents met here in the US. Please don't come here. It breaks my heart to say it, but it isn't safe for you.
Rather it was an earnest concern for the health and well-being of fellow humans given the harsh, punitive and cruel tactics being used on people by my government.
If and when we stop treating visitors like criminals, I will once again heartily recommend that folks come and visit the US. It's an amazing place with all sorts of fabulous places, things and people. And despite the loudest and nastiest among us, most Americans are kind and decent people.
But that time is not now. And more's the pity.
I'm not fan of the trend, I'm open about it I despise travel restrictions and the security theater but I really want to hear from people who like the new way the world is headed for.
Republicans are planning to ban all pornography under the guise of "national health crisis". It's in their Project 2025 playbook which they have been following very closely.
Europe has ~750 million people, and even with current policies (where migrants might drown when their boat sinks while the Greek Coast Guard looks on and laughs) millions of migrants try to enter Europe each year.
The US has ~340 million people, and even with current policies (where children might be separated from parents and placed into cruel detention centers) millions of migrants try to enter the US each year.
If movement was free, how many hundreds of millions would pour from Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and South Asia into Europe and the US? The 3+ billion who live in the tropics are only going to become more likely to try to migrate as the climate continues to warm.
People don't actually leave the places they grow up or their families and friends to live on European food stamps.
Also, Europe tends to receive the worst people because the legal routes are closed. We end up with people who dare to go to the illegal routes for other reasons than running for their lives.
US a similar thing, instead of relying on illegal workforce just let in people from the main gates and watch out for shady types.
There are so many things that can be done to address the issues instead of dividing the world limited travel areas.
Do your part and educate an idiot you know. Ask them to stop being unreasonable and stop spreading lies or you will cut them off.
This will probably result in you cutting them off.
We cannot sink into total FUD!
This is often how families of cult members act when they discover their family member has joined a cult. Usually it has the effect of pushing the cult member to become further indoctrinated because the cult is the only thing in their life that offers them acceptance and validation. Instead, talk to them using their terms and get them to understand your world view in their terms.
Some people will still be obstinate and I do not have a solution for that; I am, however, certain that invalidating them is not a solution, even if one believes that what they are saying is not valid. The point is that people need to feel safe in order to change their opinions (doing so is a very vulnerable moment) and constantly invalidating someone is a great way to make sure they constantly feel psychologically unsafe around you.
Just to reiterate: if one is really hoping to change the mind of someone close to them, don't give them an ultimatum to change their mind or you'll cut them off. The result will be that they don't change their mind and you remove yourself from a good position to effect that change.
If the cult believes to ignore anyone that disagrees, how do you break through? Crime has gone down over the decades and people are still screaming their heads off at it at every level. How do you embrace cult think about spreading insecurity? How can you argue on their terms when their terms aren’t even remotely accurate?
There's not really anything on my laptop, other than SSH keys and some stuff that's in git anyway. So it can technically just be a clean Linux installation on a old burner laptop. When I'm across the border, I could simply install my password manager and pull everything from git.
For the phone that's a little more tricky, because I'd need my 2FA for the password manager. I suppose I could do a "blank" phone and just have the TOTP QR code printed on a piece of paper.
It just seems like it's more suspicious to carry two blank devices.