All the bickering about the validity of this specific story and the “if you don’t like it don’t ever leave home to go anywhere ever” misses the crux of the issue that these articles are trying to raise:
* Do we agree that a law enforcement arm of any country should be allowed to perform warrantless searches of electronic devices?
* Do we find it acceptable that persons with critical views are denied entry to countries that profess protection of speech for its citizens?
* If we find either of the above objectionable, what should we be doing to stop it?
The reality is that this is on the rise, not just in the USA but globally, and we should be having frank discussions on whether this is acceptable or not given its repercussions.
For context, despite my critique of an unnamed EMEA government, they’ve happily let me into their country repeatedly to do work for an employer, associate with my colleagues, and perform volunteer work within its borders. On the flip side, I have serious doubts about my ability to enter authoritarian regimes like China because of my outspoken critique of government policies, regardless of my intentions within their borders.
This [broader issue] is what we should be discussing, not nuanced specifics over a single incident.
legitster · 10h ago
Borders in particular are tricky things. You don't have any legal right to be admitted into a country that doesn't want you, and there is no due process that protects you. Warrants are not really a thing. So it really comes down to how friendly your countries are with each other and how much you are willing to put up with to get entry.
stego-tech · 10h ago
That’s how it currently is, but now how it has always been or always will be. Never mistake the present for either the past or the future.
That’s what I’m getting at, here. Folks are digging into the details of what’s in front of them instead of stepping back and looking at the bigger picture first.
mingus88 · 10h ago
Yeah I am very pro-privacy and don’t agree that this is a choice between requiring warrants at the border or no searches at all.
From a practical standpoint it’s completely unworkable to require an actual judge to evaluate every person coming in and out to issue or deny a warrant. The costs alone are staggering.
throw0101c · 10h ago
> […] countries that profess protection of speech for its citizens?
Not just citizens: AIUI the various US Constitution Amendments apply to everyone with-in the US. And more generally, the US sees itself—or at least its ideals—as the model people should strive for ("City upon a Hill").
kcplate · 5h ago
> AIUI the various US Constitution Amendments apply to everyone with-in the US
Mostly correct (depends on which amendment), but technically this guy didn’t cross into the US yet since he hadn’t cleared customs and border control…so the first amendment doesn’t apply to him.
hayst4ck · 38m ago
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
No where does it say "on US soil" or "for US Citizens," and that is absolutely 100% by design based on the founding fathers philosophy which can be read in the declaration of independence.
It states plainly and unqualified "make no law abridging the freedom of speech." This both asserts that there is a freedom of speech that exists outside of the government and that congress shall make no law abridging it.
In their philosophy, the government purposefully doesn't grant the right to freedom of speech, because the founding fathers argument was that their, and all people's, natural god given (literally) rights are why they were justified in rebelling against the British government -- that rights exist outside of, and above, the government.
hayst4ck · 4h ago
This country was founded on the idea that rights transcend government and that a government cannot grant rights because rights do not come from law, but from human dignity intrinsic to all of us. If rights are derived from human dignity, then a government cannot grant them, it can only protect them. If a government were to grant rights, then they would be privileges and not rights. You can read the American founder's document's which are steeped in this exact and specific language.
What we are seeing now is an assault on the idea of rights. This border control action is a salami slicing tactic against the idea of rights itself. To rob others of their dignity... their freedom to express themselves and form their own beliefs and convictions without consequences from the government means that it is no longer a right to have your own opinions and assessments, but instead that is a privilege reserved only for "the protected."
Rights exist as a counter-force to tyranny and the entire idea, language, and history of rights exists in the context of when it is justified to break the rules of authoritarian governments and fight tyranny. To call something a right is to say it is worth breaking the law to protect because it exists above law. The declaration of independence is absolutely crystal clear that rights supersede law which is why the founders of America were justified in violating British law and forming a government that protects rights rather than violates them.
When you do not protect the rights of others, it is a prelude to losing your own rights because once a right is turned into a privilege for anybody, structurally it has been turned into a privilege for everybody because the "right" is no longer derived from human dignity, but from law. Eventually you will disagree with those in power, and you will come to discover the same techniques used to weaken others rights will weaken your own. There is always a pretext or game to be played. Slavery was made illegal, but prisoners are allowed to be enslaved. Drug law turned people into criminals, which gave the government permission to take away their rights and force them into slave labor, which is a clear moral hazard. Denaturalization is something that can happen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denaturalization#Human_rights
If freedom of speech can only be denied to those who are not protected by state, then the state will figure out how to put you in the class of unprotected people, whether that is foreigner or criminal.
By the time you feel at risk of your own rights being violated, you will find yourself and everyone else have been habituated to ask if that specific person's rights should be protected rather than if a right has been violated or if you would feel robbed of your own dignity in that same situation, and the answer will be no, because the cost of answering yes will be too unbearable to acknowledge because doing so both creates a sense of personal responsibility and puts you at mortal risk while simultaneously making you feel alone, since nobody else seems to be provoked enough to act.
mrtksn · 52m ago
what I find puzzling is how come the new administration is moving so fast without resistance? As with US other countries also have some intrinsic understanding of how the government should work and when a government does something against some principle, they are met with huge pressure from the public. People will stop cooperating or start protesting.
It took Erdogan 20 years to dismantle the core of the secular republic for example , arguably he hasn’t finished it.
throw4573s2 · 3h ago
> On the flip side, I have serious doubts about my ability to enter authoritarian regimes like China because of my outspoken critique of government policies, regardless of my intentions within their borders.
I’ve posted a lot of pro-Taiwan content and not once have I ever been interrogated at the Chinese borders. Many times they don’t even talk to me.
Unless you are a well-known and famous agitator, I highly doubt they will even care about you.
IRL, the dictatorships we have don’t actually control the population that much. As long as it doesn’t create problems for the administration , nobody cares what you talk about..
Izkata · 9h ago
> All the bickering about the validity of this specific story
I think you're looking at this point the wrong way around: If the people bringing these stories up had good examples, they should use those instead of these questionable ones. Using these stories instead makes it look like the US is doing a good job of not overreaching.
soueuls · 4h ago
I have traveled extensively to both the US and China (where I did a master degree) several years ago.
I did not keep the count of many times I crossed each borders, but I can assure you it was pretty much always easier to get into China than it was to get into the US (and that was before Trump).
Chinese authorities are no jokes, but the amount of non sense you need to put up to get into the free land, is very high.
hayst4ck · 4h ago
I was mentally prepared to be violated at the Chinese border and it was one of the most boring borders I've crossed. I am not sure I was even asked a single question. Meanwhile coming back to America was the worst border I've crossed, the border guard barked at me as if I were a criminal and asked invasive questions in an accusatory manor. I am very white and very American.
docmars · 11h ago
Agreed, and well said. I think everyone's goal is (hopefully) to move away from as many double-standards around these types of incidents as possible, and level the playing field, in favor of liberty / freedom, assuming there will be a few odd anomalies needing special consideration. On paper, this incident could be one of those due to its nature as a border security issue, and I think it's safe to say that most (even those who support ICE) are viewing this as silly and unnecessary, at least in my circles.
bananalychee · 10h ago
Good idea, but now anyone trying to discuss it in a nuanced way will receive fifty comments in response bringing up one-sided stories like this one to spin a particular narrative. It's important to show that reality is more complicated than "fascist USA is throwing innocents in jail for having a meme on their phone", which is something that actually happens in other countries and that gets discussed without confirming Godwin's Law somehow. I'm still looking out for the wolf, but the cries are getting old.
guappa · 10h ago
In which other countries is it happening? Do you have any links to newsreports?
Disposal8433 · 10h ago
> which is something that actually happens in other countries
Yes, but it's (IIRC) that it's so blatantly happening in the Land of the Free World where the first amendment of the constitution is touted as the best law ever written in history.
bananalychee · 10h ago
Is it so blatant, or does it just seems like it because of the sheer amount of spin being spun? I can think of a few stories that I think qualify as evidence of overstepping, but I can also think of several from 2021-2024. I don't like it, but none really come close to the level of the UK's speech policing. Reading the comments here you'd think we're worse than China.
When it comes to border control, I've looked into several of these outrageous claims, and they consistently omit critical details that point to a valid reason for denial. Being denied entry and then having an overzealous border agent tsk-tsk at your meme is not nearly the same thing as being denied entry or thrown in jail because of it. And now OP primes us to think that the details don't really matter. I think they do, because every conversation on the current administration is now tainted by propaganda (in both directions).
smegger001 · 5h ago
Difference being I can openly disagree with UK speech laws and call tje prime minister a limp dick and not be denied entry. Where here that is no is ground for denying entry where it wasn't under previous administrations. Can you imagine the outrage had Bush admin banned anyone that mad fun of Dick Channy ?
Defenestresque · 3h ago
The first amendment is a good thing overall, but I have honestly never heard of a story of someone attempting to enter the US, someone with no criminal record and from an ally country, just to be forcibly strip-searched at the border.
They just tell you that you they are denying you entry and putting you on the next plane back.
That being said, we are clearly only getting one side of the story and I'd love to know what _exactly_ that found on his phone, but given how consistent the stories have been (pulled into secondary, forced to unlock personal media under threats of imprisonment, strip search, disappearance for a few days or weeks) I am inclined to move this from the "anecdotes" to "anecdata" to something-very-close-to-data category.
If you chose to rebutt this with the "millions of people come in to the US every year with absolutely no problem" I'd like to say that only 0.02 people die by train per 100,000,000 miles travelled. Does that mean I don't want the NTSB to investigate train crashes or that these peoples deaths (and injuries) don't matter because they comprise such a low percentage?*
I am extremely sympathetic to his position of his phone automatically downloading media he is sent. My phone's WhatsApp settings came with "auto-download any images people send you to your (local, on-device) gallery" set as default. I also had Google Photos installed, which had the option of "auto back-up any images/videos you store on your phone to your Google Photos account" which I turned on because I break my phones often. The result was that several relatives with questionable (and opposite) political tastes have their memes (think [pollitician x] next to a [hate symbol]" (got it? Good. It's not the one you're thinking of!) automatically stored on my phone and backed up to my Google Photos account, not even accounting for the automatic WhatsApp backup that is stored on my Google Drive account.
From previous reporting, the agents plug in the device into a forensic analyzer which dumps out a list of images/videos that were saved (note the distinction between "that you saved" and "that were saved") and use it against you.
I can't imagine what it must feel like to arrive here from Norway to go camping and be subject to a strip-search and interrogation because someone you may not even consider a friend sent you some shitty memes a few years ago. Or, in this case, because they found a "anti-JD-vance" meme that even JD vance seems to think is fine?
I think the title is deficient and should be based on this higher-weighted fact, over the weaker phrasing "refused entry".
"Tourist jailed without trial for possessing political cartoon"
sarchertech · 12h ago
He was placed in a cell before they found the Vance image. He also said the border guard didn’t like that image or an image of him with a wooden pipe.
I don’t doubt that it’s possible he was denied because of the Vance image and that in itself says something terrible about the current state of affairs.
But I think it’s more likely that he was stopped based on some other red flag like not having a return ticket and denied because of that.
No comments yet
ymhr · 12h ago
Even worse, you can omit “political” meme - he may be a political figure but as far as I can tell it has no relation to any policies…it’s just a silly picture.
perihelions · 12h ago
Isn't the politics the entire point though? US federal law enforcement isn't jailing people over funny pictures; they're jailing people over funny pictures *of powerful government officials*. It's an instantly-recognizable trait of a certain kind of country: like "you can't refer to Xi Jinping as "Pooh", you go to jail for that", or "you can't talk about the King of Thailand's body weight, you go to jail for that"—it's a archetype of *that* kind of place. Everyone knows what it means. "You can't make silly pictures of Vice President Vance—you go to jail for that".
gruez · 12h ago
>"Tourist jailed without trial for possessing political cartoon"
Jail almost by definition means pretrial detention, so "jailed without trial" is a tautology.
anigbrowl · 11h ago
Not in the United States. Jails are operated by cities or counties and people can be incarcerated for up to a year in jail. Prisons are operated by the state and house people convicted of felonies (sentence >1 year).
guappa · 10h ago
Most people who are not from USA do not make any distinction between jail and prison.
Nitpicking about the precise legal terminology is a bit pointless in this context.
gruez · 9h ago
It's not really nitpicking because any sort of pretrial detention is technically "jailed without trial", and pretrial detention isn't some sort of tool only used by fascist regimes. So far as I can tell, he was pulled aside for further questioning and ultimately refused entry, but the authorities didn't go out of their way to detain him for longer than necessary. No, I'm not excusing the government's behavior. Refusing someone entry for possessing a political cartoon is still bad, but "jailed without trial" is just inflammatory wording.
If some protester got arrested for protesting, the reasonable thing to do is to call it just that, not "protester jailed without trial for protesting".
tekknik · 1h ago
Even your definition seems overly broad, as being arrested is pretrial detention and only requires a spoken word from the officer.
> A jail holds people for shorter periods of time (for example, less than a year) or for pre-trial detention and is usually operated by a local government, typically the county sheriff.
> A prison or penitentiary holds people for longer periods of time, such as many years, and is operated by a state or federal government. After a conviction, a sentenced person is sent to prison.
> The authorized punishments for conviction of a misdemeanor are:
> (a) For Class 1 misdemeanors, confinement in jail for not more than twelve months and a fine of not more than $2,500, either or both.
dandanua · 11h ago
The higher-weighted fact is that the USA has a brutal double assassination of opposition politicians (a senator and a house representative along with their spouses), and no one is talking about that, zero mentions on hacker news. A guy detained for a Vance meme? Yeah, keep your attention on that. You live in a fascism already.
SauciestGNU · 10h ago
I think there's been plenty of discussion of the above, and it often dovetails with immigration enforcement and the pretty reasonable assumption that the masked kidnap squads are law enforcement impersonators in much the same way the assassin was, and the two types of situation are different manifestations of the same threat model (volent actors working at the behest of the autocrat but without necessarily being agents of the state).
airforce1 · 9h ago
A state (not federal) house representative and her husband were murdered.
A state (not federal) senator and his wife were attempted murdered, but both survived and are expected to recover.
Your comment frames it as if 2 members of federal congress were assassinated which would have been a much bigger deal. State politicians being killed is still shocking and tragic, but try to be precise in your language as to not mislead.
gota · 7h ago
This is surprising to me. Are you implying/saying it's no big deal that 2 elected officials were shot (one killed) because they are "only" state-level politicians?
This is not a good sign for democracy in the US. I think a healthy response would be protests, investigations, state and federal "comissions" looking into domestic political terrorism, etc. A whole lot of consequences. Instead there is nothing.
In contrast, in Brazil (not even a best example of a healthiest democracy) the assassination of a city councilwoman (city! not even state!) has been a dominant story in politics for many years and has never completely fallen out of public attention. It's been close to a decade!
I'm not one to quickly say "fascism" or to spell out doom but even to me this is a crystal clear sign of a system starting to fail...
It's a big deal, just not as big a deal as misleadingly implied. "The capitol building was bombed!" (implying Washington DC) vs "The capitol building [of Alaska] was bombed!" would both be big deals, but one is a much bigger deal than the other.
Someone1234 · 12h ago
It is worth noting that the US has been doing digital device searches coming up to twenty years now. I had my phone searched back in the early 2000s, and my most recent US Visa required me to list all social media accounts.
I've even read (but not experienced) reports of GrayKey or UFED being used to download someone's unlocked phone for offline analysis also. Your choices at the border are either: Unlock your phone and MAYBE get let in, or refuse which is best case a guaranteed entry refusal or worse case a 5 ban (for "non-cooperation" as inadmissibility reason).
The US (and UK) treat non-citizens terribly at the border; even with zero history or justification. It is even worse for non-white Europeans.
wffurr · 11h ago
Disable biometric unlock; you're not required to provide a passcode but you can be required to look at or touch the device. Cross with it turned off.
I don't think the threat of a fine or jail time is real. Even if the agents said that, that's not an actual legal penalty they can apply. They can deny entry to someone on a visa, but they can't deny entry to a citizen or legal resident. They can keep your device, though.
I think you replied to the wrong comment. You're talking about citizen's rights and the comment you replied to is purely about non-citizens.
huslage · 11h ago
That is not true for non-citizens. Our law is swiss cheese regarding that.
snickerdoodle12 · 11h ago
Your legal rights don't seem to matter all that much when they've decided to ship you off to the gulag in El Salvador.
dm319 · 10h ago
Or better, just take a different device?
root_axis · 11h ago
A more recent development is that you might also risk jail for weeks.
neilv · 11h ago
> He claims he was then strip-searched, forced to give blood samples, a facial scan and fingerprints.
> "Later I was taken back in, and the situation got even worse. I was pushed up against a wall and was strip-searched with a lot of force. They were incredibly harsh and used physical force the whole time," he claimed.
> "I felt completely devastated and broke down, and was close to crying several times. I was on the verge of panic.
> Mads Mikkelsen was not denied entry for any memes or political reasons, it was for his admitted drug use.
legitster · 11h ago
This story sounded a little suspicious, or at least incomplete. It never mentioned why he was singled out by the border agent. Also, ICE would probably not have been involved at all.
I looked up the article in Norwegian Reddit and someone posted a link to this person's Youtube channel where he shoots guns and (apparently, as I don't speak the language) has made comments about the President. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC68cjx7WTYtXGhC3rLD3N4A
This could be the long arms of Palantir scanning social media and identifying him as a person of interest.
But also interesting is the response that Norway's Ministry of Foreign Affairs put out (I checked, this was in response to his specific case):
> Entry regulations can change at short notice, and it is the traveller's responsibility to have valid documents and be familiar with the current entry regulations. It is the immigration authorities upon arrival who decide whether you are rejected at the border.
Which seems to hint that the subject arrived in the US without proper paperwork.
matsemann · 10h ago
> Which seems to hint that the subject arrived in the US without proper paperwork.
No, it's just a general statement. Because they can't comment on specific cases.
Also note, he would not have been allowed to board the plane in Norway if he didn't have the papers in order. They check that before going to that part of the international terminal.
snickerdoodle12 · 10h ago
> Which seems to hint that the subject arrived in the US without proper paperwork.
Ok, so help him fill out the proper paper work. At which point does this justify strip searching and assaulting someone?
legitster · 10h ago
Unfortunately, this is common practice at nearly every border crossing for nearly every country (including Norway).
snickerdoodle12 · 10h ago
They might turn you around, but they're not going to beat you up and strip search you for not having the right papers.
Norway regularly strip searches suspects, to mostly the same level of standard as other European countries and even the US.
The grounds they use to determine suspicion might be different, but in both countries a lot of discretion is given to the officers.
mvdtnz · 11h ago
It sounds like when an article is possibly incomplete you just invent your own facts to fill in the gaps.
perihelions · 11h ago
I think the other story from earlier this week makes a better anchoring point for discussion[0], thought it's obvious why it was less successful (long-form New Yorker article vs. one funny picture—the funny picture *usually* wins. This is the internet). It's a lot clearer fact-pattern:
>"“Look, we both know why you are here,” the agent told me. He identified himself to me as Adam, though his colleagues referred to him as Officer Martinez. When I said that I didn’t, he looked surprised. “It’s because of what you wrote online about the protests at Columbia University,” he said."
A teacher in school told me about the time they visited East Germany. Armed guards poked though his luggage. It's a slippery slope toward fascism.
mywittyname · 12h ago
We are at the bottom of that slope and are being buried under all of the shit that's continuing to slide down it.
propagandist · 12h ago
From slavery to the Chinese exclusion act to Jim Crow to the Japanese internment camps to the patriot act. It's hard to make the case we were anything but.
What has changed recently is technology collapsing the world into a single blob of information, and that aspect gets worse every year.
FredPret · 11h ago
Despite the headline on this article you still have way more freedom and specifically freedom of speech in the US than the rest of us.
The law works differently at the border, especially for non-citizens. Tourists don't have any legal right to get in. You may argue that the guards should be kinder and I would agree.
The historical examples you mention involve racism and slavery that were terrible but also the global standard at the time.
The Patriot Act is scary, but it doesn't seem much better elsewhere in the Anglosphere or in Europe. Say something impolitic loud enough and you'll get in trouble anywhere.
Here's hoping individual freedoms win in the end.
mywittyname · 10h ago
> you still have way more freedom and specifically freedom of speech in the US than the rest of us
Depends on who "you" are.
There some some who are allowed to openly make tangible, if thinly veiled death threats to others without repercussions. Others can have their lives ruined over trivial things.
The "you"s who are not granted as much freedom of speech are aware of it and only express themselves among trusted people.
FredPret · 10h ago
There is now an absolute fountain of criticism of the current administration, the USA itself, and the entire West coming from every demographic in the USA. This isn't a new thing or restricted to Trump. I don't see any mass arrests, chilling of media, or official propaganda making the rounds.
propagandist · 5h ago
You are not looking. Law firms are targeted and silenced. Media is subservient. People absolutely do watch what they say for a large number of reasons.
The type of speech being policed is different, but it's absolutely happening.
FredPret · 5h ago
You're right and I don't like it one bit, but there was also a long list of true things that we weren't allowed to say aloud under the previous lot.
propagandist · 5h ago
Great, glad we agree. I didn't like the precious lot one bit either. Glad they're gone.
umanwizard · 11h ago
East Germany was not a fascist state, it was an explicitly anti-fascist state.
Horribly authoritarian, with wanton disregard for human rights, yes, but not "fascist".
Alupis · 11h ago
It's yet more evidence almost 0% of the population actually understands what "fascism" really is...
umanwizard · 11h ago
Right. Fascism and Soviet Bloc-style communism are both "bad" in the sense that they have tended to produce authoritarian dictatorships that massively increase human misery. But other than that, they are not at all the same ideology.
Alupis · 11h ago
The problem is with people labeling anything they dislike as "fascist". Surely we can admit it dilutes the actual meaning of the word by using it to refer to things that are, in-fact, not fascist?
smsm42 · 11h ago
Strictly speaking, yes. It was a totalitarian communist state, though people often use "fascist" to mean any totalitarian state, even if fascism is only one of many ways a totalitarian state can be implemented.
umanwizard · 11h ago
> It was a totalitarian communist state, though people often use "fascist" to mean any totalitarian state
Indeed, but those people are wrong. It would be like calling Jerry Falwell an Islamist extremist. Maybe they are bad for vaguely similar reasons but it is still inaccurate.
lupusreal · 7h ago
Quibbling about the flavors about authoritarianism is like quibbling about the flavors of shit. "No no, this is pig shit not chicken shit, it's completely different in a way that is totally irrelevant to the person being forced to eat it."
umanwizard · 7h ago
No, words mean things and if you use them randomly people will not take you seriously.
If you start telling me about how Syria has a serious problem with fundamentalist Baptists I am just going to assume you have no idea what you're talking about.
lupusreal · 7h ago
The meaning of words shifts over time. Fascism and authoritarianism are colloquially conflated so often that if you make a stink about somebody calling the GDR fascist, people are going to assume you are either an apologist for the communist flavor of authoritarianism, or an autistic pedant.
Really, you're just pissing into the wind.
umanwizard · 3h ago
Alright, then what do you think I should call what used to be called “fascism” ? Since it is really quite a different thing from Soviet Block-style communism (even if both are bad!) and so could use a different word to describe it.
tartoran · 11h ago
Yeah, they were a democracy:) German Democratic Republic (GDR). Same with NK: Democratic People's Republic of Korea
umanwizard · 11h ago
They were not a democracy despite what they had in the name. They were also not fascist, which has nothing to do with what was in their name. They were actually not fascist, in the sense that they didn't follow the ideology called "fascism".
Fascism is a specific ideology invented in Italy in the early 20th century; it does not just mean any authoritarian dictatorship.
tartoran · 11h ago
Yes, they were not fascist as an ideology. But I was pointing out the country was a democracy in name only which means whatever one calls themselves or claims to be are not necesarily rooted in reality.
umanwizard · 11h ago
You're correct about that, which is why my claim that they were not fascist has nothing to do with what was in their name or whether or not they claimed to be anything. It is based on the fact that in actual reality they did not follow the ideology of fascism.
platevoltage · 11h ago
You think you're being clever here. East Germany was essentially the USSR's particular brand of Authoritarianism. No one is making the claim that they were a democracy. Believe it or not, there is a difference between Fascism and Authoritarian Communism.
kube-system · 11h ago
Interestingly, as an American, literally the only time I've had my luggage poked through by an armed guard was in a social democracy in Europe.
smsm42 · 11h ago
There's some inspection in practically every transport hub when I travel. While I traveled internationally the most strict was in Germany. I really don't mind a lot - there are good reasons to be careful - but they had guards in full military gear and with automatic weapons (usually it's handguns and plain uniforms) which looked pretty intimidating, and that was the only time I had to actually turn on my laptop to show it's a working laptop and not some kind of trick. Maybe showing how strict and tough they are was the point. The worst inspectors I had were in London. They were exceedingly slow and had very unpleasant manners. Maybe just my luck. Never had any real problems though - worst thing they got a look on my underpants and power connectors, and sent me on my way.
kube-system · 11h ago
Yeah, of course most places inspect luggage, but here in the US luggage inspection is done mostly by staff who are not police/military.
smsm42 · 9h ago
There are many more armed services in the US than police/military. Dept. of Education has a SWAT team. Amtrak has armed force. US Park service has one. Really, there are so many of them.
kube-system · 9h ago
Those are all examples of police agencies with police powers. This is in contrast to TSA officers screening your luggage, who have no police powers and are not police.
To add another example to your list -- the TSA also has their own police (e.g. Federal Air Marshal Service), but they don't work the line screening your baggage.
umanwizard · 3h ago
Those are police. They can arrest you, unlike the TSA.
jccalhoun · 11h ago
Conversely, as an American, the only time I've had my luggage poked through was coming back into the USA. I don't remember if they were armed though.
freeone3000 · 11h ago
The only time that you’ve known of! Fly with locked luggage and see how often that lock stays intact.
kube-system · 11h ago
TSA removes locks with bolt cutters, they don't shoot them off.
freeone3000 · 11h ago
… well, yes, but they are armed guards and they are searching your luggage. I feel that’s more relevant than the exact method of lock removal.
kube-system · 11h ago
No, the TSA security officers who are inspecting passengers and their luggage do not have arrest powers and are not armed.
If you are doing something illegal, they call the police, and the police arrest you.
freeone3000 · 11h ago
Does your need to be technically correct outweigh your need to understand an argument?
brewdad · 10h ago
Facts matter and yours are wrong.
kube-system · 10h ago
The adjective "armed" in my topmost comment wasn't a technicality, it was the entire point of the anecdote. Do you really think I was saying that the TSA never searches luggage? Obviously the TSA searches a lot of luggage, the thing they don't do is carry guns while doing so.
freeone3000 · 10h ago
Right, they have to call the guy with a gun over. Is the problem the luggage search, as in, the invasion of privacy? The explicit threat of force in the absence of immediate compliance? The assumption of guilt for the general populace? The ever-present security state continually looking to oppress?
Or is it “huh europe is weird they give their TSA agents guns instead of having the transport security and also airport police?”
kube-system · 9h ago
It's just an anecdote. I wasn't trying to draw any philosophical conclusions from it.
Freedom2 · 10h ago
To be fair, you are on HackerNews.
barbazoo · 11h ago
> It's a slippery slope toward fascism.
Not sure I would ever consider the GDR to have been "fascist".
Authoritarianism is the more appropriate term I think.
smsm42 · 11h ago
If border officers being armed or inspecting luggage is a definition of fascism to you, you'd struggle hard to find a lot of non-fascist countries. I have my luggage inspected each time I travel, and a lot of security personnel in airports are armed - are all airports already fascist?
csense · 12h ago
Armed guards in 1980's East Germany open your luggage and poke through it by hand.
TSA employees in 2000's USA scan your luggage and poke through it with technology. For any reason or no reason, they can open it up and poke through it by hand, or ask for assistance from nearby policemen with guns.
Is there any moral difference? If so, what is it?
(Also, nitpick: The East Germans were Communists, not fascists.)
arlort · 12h ago
Yes, the moral difference is in the motivation and consequences.
We take into account motivation pretty often to evaluate morality not sure why you can't apply it here
TSA's purpose is prevent harm to other passengers (effectiveness is debatable but not the point), the east German border guards were there to keep control on what information the population could access and share
They are not the same thing even if the means look the same
anal_reactor · 11h ago
So basically, "when we do it it's good, when they do it it's bad"? I didn't think I'd see someone seriously practice such morality on this website.
arlort · 1h ago
Is it moral for an ambulance to cut through traffic, run red lights and break speed limits? Is the same moral for drunk teenagers?
There's no action (and by that I do mean action, not something abstract that involves multiple actions and choices) that won't be moral some times and immoral others. Intent is always to be accounted for. I'd be happy to have counterexamples if you have any in mind
Also pretty weird to see you infuse a sense of moral superiority to this website of all places
Veen · 11h ago
Most morally mature people practice that sort of reasoning. They take into account intentions, likely consequences, the state of knowledge of those involved, and other complicating factors before coming to a conclusion.
anal_reactor · 11h ago
I think we have exactly opposite definitions of "moral maturity".
Veen · 11h ago
You may be right, anal_reactor.
gruez · 12h ago
>Armed guards poked though his luggage. It's a slippery slope toward fascism.
Is it? Lack of rights at the border isn't "fascism", it's the norm. I don't think any country gives you 4th amendment (or similar) rights at the border, even liberal democracies.
Alupis · 11h ago
And nearly all "rights" are rights of citizens, not visitors...
umanwizard · 10h ago
This is false in every country I know of with even a rudimentary adherence to the rule of law, including the US.
Freedom2 · 10h ago
Is the implication here that lawfully granted visas and green card holders don't have rights in the US?
foobarian · 11h ago
It was a lot more invasive than that in those days. The border agents would rifle through our groceries and occasionally things like dried meats or booze would magically go missing. Other times they would be officially confiscated, or customs levied.
wang_li · 12h ago
I went to Canada 10 years ago. When they asked why, I told them I was mailing a birthday gift to a Canadian friend and I wanted to be the one who had to pay any duties or taxes. They had me pull over and go inside. Where they asked the password for my phone and then took it. A couple hours later they came back and gave me my phone, charged me ~$100 and let me go through. When I got to my car I found that they had opened the package I was mailing and a number of things had been moved around, from which I concluded they had also searched my car.
i drove to Surrey to a UPS Store, resealed and shipped the package and returned to the border. The US Immigration officer asked why I was only in Canada for 30 minutes, I explained, he laughed and sent me on my way.
Moral of the story is that every country can and will search your stuff and detain you and often turn you back for no meaningful reason.
beambot · 12h ago
East Germany was under communist control after the fascist regime lost the war... It's accurate to describe as "authoritarian", but not "fascist."
BurningFrog · 12h ago
For many, everything bad is "fascism", regardless of any similarity to the Mussolini rule of Italy 1922-1943.
pmontra · 11h ago
Of course it lacked the mark on the anticommunism checkbox, but control of society and control of economy were checked. That's 50% of the fascist playbook.
There was probably some nationalism too. Stalin buried internatonalism quickly. They would inevitably bow to the Russian overlords. No shame about it. We were bowing to the USA in the West and we still are.
Anyway, was communism only a facade by the 70s and the 80s? In that case it was a fully fascist country. All of the East.
I'd like to hear from somebody who lived in those countries at that time.
nocoiner · 12h ago
In fact, East Germany was so anti-fascist they erected the “Anti-Fascist Barrier” around East Berlin.
tranchebald · 11h ago
The Stasi were communist. Maybe you want to say “authoritarian”?
keybored · 11h ago
I think East Germany was the opposite of fascism. At least compared to West Germany.
platevoltage · 11h ago
This is what we get when the American right wing conflates the two terms on TV for years and years. Don't like the definition of a word? just change it.
Rebuff5007 · 12h ago
I vote for a campaign to make sure every single entrant has this meme on their phone.
MadnessASAP · 12h ago
You're making a bet that the country with the largest prison system on earth and 5th highest incarceration rate can't arrest all of us.
You do you but that's gonna be a no for me.
mcosta · 11h ago
While the US has the largest prison population, it ranks lower in per capita incarceration rates compared to some other nations. These are El Salvador, Rwanada, Turkmenistan and Cuba.
surgical_fire · 11h ago
Thank you but no. I prefer to be safely at home across the pond.
I don't want to be in some Central American concentration camp when they decide that its time to turn on the ovens.
nine_k · 12h ago
Are you volunteering to be one of the entrants, too?
CoastalCoder · 11h ago
It would be an interesting application of the Streisand effect.
pluc · 12h ago
Hmmm, in what other country is it a punishable offence to make fun of its dear leaders? Thailand? North Korea? Myanmar?
Like it or not, these countries are who you are being compared to.
Note in most of these cases people prosecuted faced graver consequences than not being let into the country, and were full citizens, not foreigners.
smsm42 · 11h ago
I omitted Netherlands because while they did actually have lèse-majesté laws on the books, and prosecuted people under it, they abolished it after Trump's first presidency. OK, I am kidding, it had nothing at all to do with Trump, they just abolished it in 2020 without any connection to what happened in the US.
Belgium abolished similar law in 2023. Switzerland allows you to mock local politicians, but not foreign ones based in Switzerland (go figure). Portugal, Iceland, Denmark and Brazil still seem to have such codes, though I am not aware of any recent prosecutions (maybe they exist, I'm just lazy and don't want to make this into a whole M.Sc. thesis in political science).
esbranson · 10h ago
Pretty sure the comparison is between people who know what their country is doing, versus those who have no clue.
vbezhenar · 12h ago
Almost any country can deny entry at will of border officer.
remram · 11h ago
Don't go by the submitted title only. He was detained for hours with no food or water, beaten up, strip-searched, forced to give blood samples.
happytoexplain · 11h ago
And yet in practice, this example is rare. "Can" is not "should" or "is immune from criticism for doing so".
jajuuka · 11h ago
You completely missed the point. The issue isn't denying entry, it's denying entry for this reason.
Workaccount2 · 11h ago
He was detained before the image was found. It's most likely there is another detail to this story that is being left out.
oceansky · 12h ago
Does even China does that? Go through pics on your personal device at the border? Refuse entry over memes.
seanmcdirmid · 12h ago
They have never gone through my phone, although I guess if they wanted to nothing would stop them. The immigration agents don't even ask questions most of the time, heck, I don't even here them speak on most of my entries.
raverbashing · 11h ago
China is not worried about who enters. They're worried about who leaves
olalonde · 10h ago
They don't ask any questions when you leave either, unless you overstayed your visa. In that case, they just ask you to come back with money to pay the fine. It's actually kind of funny: they don’t detain you or anything, just politely tell you to find an ATM and come back when you have cash to pay the fine.
seanmcdirmid · 7h ago
This happened to my wife in Japan when we were trying to board the second try of our flight cancelled the day before. I told them "we don't have any Japanese money, and anyways, this was Delta's fault, so just get them to pay." We sat around for a half hour while they got Delta to pay her fine.
seanmcdirmid · 7h ago
They don't really speak then either, but ya, emigration checks is one thing that most countries have but the USA lacks for some reason.
olalonde · 10h ago
Nope, they barely even talk to you. I've crossed the Chinese border literally hundreds of times, mostly from Hong Kong. They usually don’t ask anything and if they do, it's just a basic "What's the purpose of your visit?" I’ve never had my bags searched or been sent to secondary inspection. Even crossed with one barefoot once (long story) and wasn't even asked about it.
In contrast, my worst border experiences have been in the U.S. and Canada (and I've traveled to over 30 countries).
In the US, I was nearly denied entry at SFO while on a valid TN visa simply because I didn't have a business card with me. The officer also referred to my wife as a "Chinese bitch" - within earshot (this happened during the Obama years). I had to let them handle my phone a bit to verify work emails, etc. But they didn't really search through it beyond that.
In Canada, I was sent to secondary inspection, had my bags searched, and was asked to show the photos on my phone. I was questioned for over an hour and they never told me the reason for it. It felt like they suspected me of smuggling drugs because the guy kept asking me what I had for breakfast... I'm Canadian btw and don't do drugs.
paxys · 12h ago
Have been to China multiple times and no, this does not happen.
gruez · 12h ago
To be fair something that makes the news isn't necessarily indicative of the median experience either. If US and China both looked through 0.1% of traveler's phones, that'd be both compatible with horror stories making the news, and widespread anecdotes of "weird, never happened to me".
TheOtherHobbes · 12h ago
US visa applicants are required to disclose five years of social media history and to make listed accounts public.
Where does it say that? Your source only says profiles need to be public
Moreover your description is slightly misleading because it only applies to "all applicants for F, M, and J nonimmigrant visas", which notably excludes tourism visas (B-2). The visas listed all seem to be academic related, presumably because the administration wants to crack down on woke ivy league students or whatever.
perihelions · 11h ago
It was on HN yesterday,
> "THE US EMBASSY in Dublin is tightening its visa requirements, saying that future applicants looking to visit the country will be required to divulge “all social media usernames or handles of every platform they have used from the last five years” on their visa application form."
Irish citizens aren't using the US Embassy in Dublin to travel to the US. That is servicing non-Irish citizens with Irish residency.
knorker · 12h ago
Not when I went there. I needed a lot of paperwork for the visa at their embassy, and to surrender my passport for a few days, and a signed statement from my employer that I was not a journalist of any kind.
I got in. I was sent to some form of secondary screening, but they apparently couldn't find anybody who could speak English, so they just let me in.
Edit: I'm from a rich western country, in case it matters for anybody getting an understanding of who gets treated what way.
AnotherGoodName · 12h ago
I did get a weird interaction in China fwiw. Let in fine but at one point i sat down to have lunch at a restaurant and 2 English speaking police officers sat down at my table and started asking if i was doing well etc. I just chatted making sure not to say anything negative about the government, talked about tourist sites and they left, they were fine, no issue. Just a weird interaction.
I guess it's a routine part of China's paranoia. They definitely do do weird things to check if tourists are causing trouble in some way i guess. I imagine that sort of interaction alone would scare off trouble makers and it's probably effective honestly.
csa · 10h ago
> I guess it's a routine part of China's paranoia. They definitely do do weird things to check if tourists are causing trouble in some way i guess.
I’m guessing you actually did something suspicious or illegal without realizing it.
A common and simple example of this is taking pictures where it’s technically forbidden — airports, military buildings (these aren’t always obvious to visitors), religious sites, etc.
Another example would be interacting with a person of interest. This could be a Chinese person that they are watching, or a foreigner that they are keeping tabs on (e.g., embassy staff that they suspect of being an agent).
As a tourist, you probably wouldn’t notice these things or even be aware that they are a red flag.
rfoo · 11h ago
Contrary to common belief, it's fine to say negative things about the government in this case, as long as you are not Chinese. They may argue with you (or laugh at you for some even weirder reasons) and you both may have an unpleasant conversation, but that's it.
nine_k · 12h ago
Did they check your social media accounts? Did these accounts contain any memes involving the current PRC administration?
knorker · 12h ago
I don't recall them asking for any social media at any point. But I don't have Facebook, tiktok, instagram, snapchat, grinder, myspace, or other muggle social media.
I of course wouldn't know if they tried to find my profiles.
nine_k · 11h ago
BTW not having profiles on mugg^W normie social media may be sometimes considered a red flag by itself, so I keep e.g. a reasonable Facebook profile, without posting anything.
badgersnake · 12h ago
Not in my experience. They check your passport and your visa. Didn’t go anywhere near my phone.
I wouldn’t be sharing Winnie the Pooh memes on WeChat though.
throwawayq3423 · 7h ago
Yes they do, once you connect to cell service in China your data is comprised. As well as unlawful detentions and exit bans.
But we don't talk about that for whatever reason.
throwawayq3423 · 4h ago
compromised*
iLoveOncall · 12h ago
I'm sure it happens, and they also don't systematically check phones when entering the US, it's probably exceedingly rare and I've never witnessed it despite travelling to the US 3 times since Trump got elected.
Case in point this is only the 2nd story ever to come out about someone being detained / refused entry for content that was on their phone since Trump is president.
throwawaysleep · 12h ago
Visited PRC several times. They didn’t even ask much of a reason for my visit beyond “tourism”.
nelsonfigueroa · 12h ago
Jeez...is the current administration that sensitive to criticism? I wonder if this comment will come back to haunt me some day.
theyinwhy · 12h ago
It's anticipatory obedience, "a situation where one attempts to predict expectations others (particularly superiors) have, without explicit communication, and to fulfill (or exceed) those expectations.", see https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/anticipatory_obedience
Arubis · 12h ago
Perhaps the most consistent common thread of despotic and tyrannical types is a complete absence of a sense of humor.
AdamN · 12h ago
This is really just the essence of bureaucracy - which is the problem with these rules that sounds fine if you don't think about the implementation of them.
Trump himself probably wouldn't care (which is why he thinks these rules are fine - he knows what should be a jailable offense) but of course the bureaucracy needs to make rules that any of the thousands of border guards can follow. The outcome is a bullwhip effect and you get this (or worse).
SV_BubbleTime · 9h ago
What was he like when you spent time with him?
DocTomoe · 12h ago
Most likely, this wasn’t official policy — just a low-paid border agent on a personal power trip.
Give a man a uniform, and watch him turn tyrant. The Stanford Prison Experiment says hello.
The real problem is that the US system allows individuals with minimal training and virtually no oversight to wield unchecked power over travelers' lives.
BurningFrog · 12h ago
Let me just point out that the only source we have for this story is one angry Norwegian.
The only verified fact is that he was denied entry.
mpalmer · 11h ago
It's pretty hard to corroborate a story like this. Everyone has to make their own judgment, but I cannot give the benefit of the doubt to the US government. What reason does this guy have to lie? If he was denied entry because of something actually illegal or non legit, why would he risk this exposure to make something up? If he wasn't denied entry and just decided to fly home and make up the lie, why pay for a vacation?
BurningFrog · 5h ago
It's probably impossible to corroborate this story. But that does not mean we can consider it corroborated!
One obvious reason to lie is that the real reason is embarrassing. Maybe he has criminal history, porn/nazi/fentanyl docs, what-have-you. Then when people ask why you was denied, you have to say something.
I'm absolutely not saying that he is lying! Only that we shouldn't blindly trust him.
airforce1 · 10h ago
> What reason does this guy have to lie?
It might not be 100% lies, it might be "based on a true story". The temptation to embellish/frame yourself as the faultless protagonist is instinctive and there are hundreds of examples of people doing it. Narrative shifts are super common in cases where facts are initially sparse and then more come to light... we don't have the whole context.
JackFr · 11h ago
A reasonable news outlet would call CBP for a comment.
Something like "attempts to reach CBP for comment were unsuccessful." goes a long way. It's a tell that they don't. The story is too good not to print.
busterarm · 10h ago
CBP does comment on these when asked! The previous one of these that went around even has a Snopes page with paragraphs of comments from DHS officials.
llm_nerd · 11h ago
Given that federal agencies have zero accountability to the legislative branch or the courts, or the constitution for that matter -- something that the constitutionalists suddenly aren't concerned about -- this is the best you're possibly going to get. And this story is hardly alone, and there are many similar tales. Canadians are being asked their position on Trump, which is as sure a demonstration possible that zero Canadians should be travelling to that country for any reason.
Do you expect the vile dog-shooting sociopath Kristi Noem to speak to this, given it's under her realm of extraordinary incompetence? Maybe she can play dressup to try to get some camera time.
For years we heard whines and cries about the politicization of government. Well the entire apparatus of the US federal government now wears a red hat and writes an essay declaring fealty to the king. It didn't take much for the country to collapse into a fallen idiocracy/husk of an autocracy, at least as a prelude for the utterly inevitable secessionist movement that is going to kick up to an 11.
jwkerr · 12h ago
Is this a reputable source? Is it a coincidence that the subject shares the name Mads Mikkelsen, or is this just bad reporting?
The US is becoming more and more like the Soviet union was at some point - truly authoritarian. The same would possibly also happen in China of you had a picture of Xi Jinping. It's fascinating that "the land of the free" has come to this.
NorwegianDude · 9h ago
I had planned a trip that included the US for this summer, but the fact that they can demand the password for my devices is the main reason im not going. Having to wipe devices before travel and having to download data again because people dont respect privacy and others suck.
The fact that you have to get approved before traveling(that is fine), and then can be denied entry when you arrive for no logical reason is absurd. Visiting the US is simply not worth the risk and hassle.
Its crazy when you expect your privacy to be more respected in China.
United857 · 12h ago
I’m no fan of the current administration but this is one person’s account so inherently 1 sided. I just flew in from Europe and most people were not searched. US border control don’t have time to systemically search the phones of all travelers. I’m guessing some other red flag triggered the questioning and phone search and denial (eg no return ticket or accommodation booked).
eviks · 12h ago
Why is it less credible than your inherently 0 sided guess?
Veen · 11h ago
Because people of all political persuasions tell lies for attention and to support their political agenda. It is sensible to withhold judgment until there is sufficient information to make a reasonable determination on the balance of probabilities. That may mean witholding your righteous indignation for a day or two, but that's a price worth paying.
eviks · 11h ago
Except in reality judgment wasn't withheld, so your template doesn't fit.
nine_k · 12h ago
Indeed, a clear indication that the meme was the reason, or at least part of the reason, to deny admission would have a very serious weight, and hopefully grounds for the reversal of the decision, and a disciplinary action.
Ar-Curunir · 12h ago
You are talking about the US administration here, which is currently making up rules as it pleases based on the whims of a geriatric maniac, and where masked kidnappers are abducting people off the streets without repercussion. None of what you said is likely to happen.
nine_k · 11h ago
I agree that the top of the administration is plenty rotten, but I still believe that rank-and-file people in governmental agencies did not lose their dignity, at least those who had it.
chasd00 · 12h ago
at the very end of the article there's a statement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that contains "..and it is the traveller's responsibility to have valid documents and be familiar with the current entry regulations." which makes me believe there's more to the story.
tc313 · 12h ago
> it is the traveller's responsibility to have valid documents and be familiar with the current entry regulations
This response from the Norwegian foreign office makes it seem like the man lacked proper documentation, which led to the search. However, it’s unclear to me whether the comment is specific to this case or just a general statement.
hermanzegerman · 11h ago
Bullshit. They won't let you board a plane heading towards the US without a valid ESTA/Visum and Passport
pstuart · 12h ago
It lines up with other reports for the same general issue, and also jibes with how the admin itself deals with criticism.
IAmBroom · 12h ago
"Evidence? When it supports our assumptions? Bah!"
perching_aix · 11h ago
Yeah, expecting a governmental agency to produce evidence that will negatively impact their political standing is a very reasonable request indeed. Or expecting evidence from a person who was stripped of all their devices. How silly these people are for working with what they have. They even lie about how much and what quality of information is it that they possess... oh wait, no they don't, you're just being a jackass. Well ain't that unfortunate.
keerthiko · 12h ago
from the article:
> "They threatened me with a minimum fine of $5,000 or five years in prison if I refused to provide the password to my phone."
this isn't real/legal/enforceable (as the law currently stands) is it? how does one protect ourselves against this turn of events upon entry when the immigration officer's claim fails the smell test?
AdamN · 12h ago
?? This has been called out for more than a decade I think. Within 100 miles of the border CBP has broad discretion and rights are limited in these types of circumstances.
anigbrowl · 11h ago
The question is about the threat of a $5000 fine/5 years of prison, not whether CBP can conduct inspections.
No comments yet
ethan_smith · 11h ago
CBP has broad search authority at borders without warrants, and while they can't criminally charge you for refusing to unlock your device, they can deny entry, seize the device, and ban you from future entry - effectively making the "5 years in prison" threat misleading but the practical consequences still severe.
brewdad · 10h ago
In layman’s terms we don’t call that misleading. It is false. Perhaps an outright lie.
arlort · 12h ago
By not travelling to the US if you're not willing to do it
Don't see how it wouldn't be legal as long as the target of the request isn't a citizen
tristor · 11h ago
IANAL, but I would expect that it's extremely unlikely to be fined or imprisoned when you can simply be deported prior to entry. Technically until you pass through border control, you aren't "in" the country you are traveling to, so they can simply refuse entry and deport you.
Havoc · 11h ago
Lots of other countries to explore. I'll revisit this in 4 years by then we'll also know if US democracy is still a thing
mvdtnz · 11h ago
I won't be reconsidering in four years. The American people have shown who they are. Like you say, plenty of other countries to visit.
Vortigaunt · 10h ago
Isn't it interesting how this post has more votes than anything else on the first page, is one hour old, and is currently on page 4. Seems like there's some interesting censorship going on in this website outside the consistent flagging of material deemed wrong-think.
bix6 · 12h ago
That’s not JD Vance it’s Marc Andreessen!
throw4847285 · 12h ago
Head is not egg shaped enough.
FeteCommuniste · 12h ago
Nah, the top of the head isn't pointy enough for it to be Andreessen.
mensetmanusman · 11h ago
Looking further into the story from other sources commenting and there are no other corroborating sources.
Have been lied to too many times by the media with stories like these to believe them at first glance.
Disposal8433 · 12h ago
Going to the USA as a tourist might be the most stupid action that one can make at this time. Unless you have a dying mother or father, there is absolutely no reason to visit this country. It reminds me of the tourists that used to go to North Korea for fun some years ago, it never was a good idea.
Findecanor · 11h ago
I expect this British man [0] to have cancelled this family trip to Miami now, after having found a picture online of his tattoo with his daughter's date and time of birth being published by the ICE as an example of a "Venezuelan gang tattoo".
I'd go further and say that going to the USA as a tourist unethical at this point. Keeping your money out the USA is the best thing you can do for the USA and the world right now.
tremon · 7h ago
Sadly, both FIFA and the IOC are still trying very hard to bring their money and tourists to the USA (World Cup 26 and Olympics 28).
lenerdenator · 12h ago
> Going to the USA as a tourist might be the most stupid action that one can make at this time.
I can think of several things that are more stupid, and for better or worse, border guards are dicks in a lot of countries.
rhcom2 · 11h ago
This is chilling to more than just tourists. I have friends who are Mexican nationals who now have to consider any meme on their phone before their way back to the States after visiting home.
SXX · 10h ago
Tbh even visiting much more authoritorian countries can be quite a pleasant experience as foreigner. As long as you not plan to work or become permanent resident they usually nicer to foreigners than to locals.
With exception of might be Russia very few of such countries actually ever arrest tourists. Worst that can happen they'll send you out and ban for life.
Being a citizen of authoritorian country is another story...
EA-3167 · 12h ago
In 2023, when tourism rates had yet to fully recover from Covid, over 66 million people visited the US from abroad. I don't have more recent statistics, but I'm going to assume that the number is the same or higher this year.
Out of that population which could fill a decent-sized country, how many people have been treated so unfairly as the one in this article? How do those stats compare with other countries, and the inevitable abuses that occur in any vast bureaucracy?
It's possible to oppose the current US administration and still retain your rationality.
Nope, tourism is tanking. There are numerous stories about tourists being detained for little to no reason and eventually deported.
Travel warnings from various international orgs like Amnesty International and other governments have been mounting since 2019. It also doesn't help when the president attacks the country that makes up a large portion of tourist like Canada.
lol768 · 12h ago
> In 2023, when tourism rates had yet to fully recover from Covid, over 66 million people visited the US from abroad. I don't have more recent statistics, but I'm going to assume that the number is the same or higher this year.
World Travel & Tourism Council says international visitor spending is going to drop by $12.5bn this year (down 22.5%).
jmorenoamor · 11h ago
Forcing you to hand your phone password and expose all your personal intimacy, or face prision, even when the chances are low, is quite a risk.
Even this comment in HN could put me into problems if the guard considers it harmful.
If a funny pic of a politician can put you into prision, the probably some messages you write in a WhatsApp group with friends, discussing world news, could mean serious problems.
pixelesque · 12h ago
I doubt it's that high with loads of Canadians not visiting the US.
I planned last year to stop off in Hawaii and Seattle on the way from NZ to the UK this May, but in March this year I altered that and just did Vancouver instead as the stop-off.
I know several friends and colleages who have also done similar (even two didn't go to weddings of friends in the US).
izolate · 11h ago
You're exaggerating the significance of Canadians in US tourism statistics. NY and MA have larger populations than ON and QC, Canada's two largest provinces. Therefore, even "loads" is a relatively small number.
brewdad · 10h ago
A lot of Canadian “tourism” isn’t of the stay in a series of hotels for two weeks variety. It’s cross the border to attend a concert or sporting event. Grab a bite to eat and stock up at Walmart/Costco/<insert favorite store here> before heading home. Sales at the Costco nearest the border with BC were down 20% at the same time Costco was seeing increased sales nationwide.
jjkaczor · 11h ago
Then why are all the border states, towns and cities (and their elected representatives) begging Canadian tourists to come back, with endless advertisements, appeals to our historic friendship, temporarily re-naming streets ("Canada Street", really? Can't wait for the photo-op of an ICE raid happening there) and even silly incentives (like a 3-pack of free golf balls in one case)...?
Yeah, good luck downplaying the 12+ billion the US tourism industry is about to lose this year.
TheOtherHobbes · 12h ago
What percentage of unnecessary and abusive jailings would you - as a rational person - consider acceptable?
umanwizard · 11h ago
(Not the person you originally replied to).
Zero, but that's not the same question. If something I think is unacceptable happens at a low rate, the fact that I think it's bad doesn't mean it's necessarily rational to change one's travel plans because of it, if the rate is low enough.
If I go to Iceland, there is some nonzero chance I'll be killed in a surprise volcanic eruption, but I wouldn't let that deter me from visiting Iceland.
The relatively high violent crime rate in US cities which was already present before the current administration is already a much more real reason not to visit the US than authoritarian border guards, although I'd argue even that would be a bit exaggerated.
Marsymars · 11h ago
> The relatively high violent crime rate in US cities which was already present before the current administration is already a much more real reason not to visit the US than authoritarian border guards, although I'd argue even that would be a bit exaggerated.
As a tourist doing tourist things in the US, your risk of being involved in a violent crime is notably lower than an average US citizen, and your risk of being involved with a border guard is notably higher.
umanwizard · 10h ago
Yes, that's true, but what's the base rate of each?
anigbrowl · 11h ago
some nonzero chance I'll be killed in a surprise volcanic eruption
Why would you compare an unpredictable natural risk with one stemming from human behavior and government policy? This is like saying speeding limits are a bad idea because some people are killed by lightning.
x86_64Ubuntu · 10h ago
Because when we use a natural risk, we remove the fact that it's actual policy put forth and implemented by humans. Otherwise, the ideology will always be brought into question, while volcanos don't have an ideology that can conflict with itself.
umanwizard · 11h ago
The point of analogies isn't to claim that the two things being compared are exactly identical, it's to draw attention to the ways in which they're similar that are relevant to the point being discussed.
By the way, I never said anything like "power tripping pro-MAGA border guards are okay because there are volcanoes in Iceland", so your lightning vs. speed limits analogy isn't relevant.
anigbrowl · 2h ago
Nonsense. Your presence in Iceland or not has no influence on whether a volcano there erupts, whereas a sharp drop in tourism is a market signal that may influence policy in the future (not necessarily under the same administration).
umanwizard · 1h ago
The original post of this subthread:
> Going to the USA as a tourist might be the most stupid action that one can make at this time. Unless you have a dying mother or father, there is absolutely no reason to visit this country. It reminds me of the tourists that used to go to North Korea for fun some years ago, it never was a good idea.
did not claim that one has a moral obligation to avoid the US, but rather tried to claim that it was stupid to do so from a purely rational perspective.
It’s the latter point I disagree with. People who avoid the US due to the possibility of personal harm by border guards are being irrational (unless perhaps they’re prominent pro-Palestinian activists).
I never said there’s no reason not visit the US. Avoiding it as a political protest against the current administration is a perfectly decent reason! But that’s not what was originally claimed.
dendrite9 · 11h ago
I was curious about how likely deaths actually are from Volcanoes in Iceland. It looks like 15 deaths in the last 500 years with an unknown number possibly in the hundreds in the 500 years before that. But also ~9000 deaths due to famine in from farmland and livestock destruction.
SV_BubbleTime · 11h ago
Are we talking confirmed? Or Clickbait title?
ordinaryradical · 12h ago
Sure, but if they’re detaining people because the officers are personal fans of JD Vance those ICE officers need to be fired. Like now. It’s unacceptable whether it’s 1 in a million or 1 in 10.
The numbers are not a principle.
dragonwriter · 7h ago
> Sure, but if they’re detaining people because the officers are personal fans of JD Vance those ICE officers need to be fired. Like now.
Pedantic, but if it is at entry rather than chasing people down afterwards, its probably CBP, not ICE. (CBP also does some chasing down afterward, too.)
dragonwriter · 7h ago
> In 2023, when tourism rates had yet to fully recover from Covid, over 66 million people visited the US from abroad. I don't have more recent statistics, but I'm going to assume that the number is the same or higher this year.
Given the repeated reports of international carriers cutting US routes due to lack of demand this year, I wonder why you would assume that the numbers this year are the same as two years ago?
> It's possible to oppose the current US administration and still retain your rationality.
Waving off new abuses isn't rationality (it's also not opposing the current administration, but the opposite, carrying water for them.)
Tade0 · 12h ago
This is unheard of anywhere in the developed world. Security at airports simply doesn't have this sort of power outside the US.
lenerdenator · 11h ago
That's simply not true.
Ask people who have tried going to Canada from the US how welcoming border guards can be at their ports of entry. Say the wrong thing or try to cross with the wrong thing (in my friend's case, it was a set of tools used to repair electronics) and they will try to jam you up and deny entry.
Fluorescence · 11h ago
I've faced the repair tools things in Europe. No meanness besides taking most of them.
I managed to save a few by arguing how ineffective as weapons they would be and then watch as two security staff try their best to pinch each other with wire strippers.
nemomarx · 11h ago
I've crossed into Canada multiple times and never had the guards comment on anything, personally? Was this a very recent thing and has there been a change in policy?
stackskipton · 11h ago
Just like US CBP, it depends on who you run into and the mood they are in. 10 years ago, I found cheap flights to Toronto from my city. When I got to Canadian Immigration, they asked, "Where are your guns?" and I said "I guess at home" just because it's a weird question that caught me off guard.
Canadian Border Guards then lectured me about responsible gun ownership, tore about my bags going "Since you don't keep track of your guns, let's find out if they are in your bags", went through my iPad movie content and finally was like "Ok, you are clear".
I've been back multiple times and since then, Scan PassportCheck ComputerSTAMP PASSPORT Welcome to Canada.
SauciestGNU · 10h ago
I'm an American citizen, and when I cross into Canada I'm greeted courteously and professionally. I've never been pulled to secondary screening and I've never had a hostile interaction.
However, when returning to the United States, even as a citizen (born, not naturalized), I have frequently faced questioning about my social graph, who specifically I have contacted, and things of that nature. I thought it was one dickhead guard in Vermont, but it keeps happening.
lupusreal · 7h ago
Yup. They asked me what guns I had in the vehicle. Totally fair. I said none and expected they might want to search the vehicle, which would have been totally fair as well. But they weren't interested in that anymore, they started asking what kind of guns I and my passenger had at home. None, for me again, but my passenger admitted to having some at home 500 miles away. He later said he felt compelled to be honest because he didn't know what databases they might be hooked into. The border guard then began grilling him about the kinds of guns he had, what their purpose was, why he would own them, etc etc. Asshole invasive questions that served no purpose. I think the border guard just saw an opportunity to needle an American for being American. At least they let us through after that. They never searched the car, clearly they didn't have any legitimate concern about anything.
kube-system · 11h ago
Airport security might not, but this is border control, which has the authority to deny entry in every country.
umanwizard · 11h ago
> Security at airports simply doesn't have this sort of power outside the US.
No qualms with your actual point, but immigration/customs is not the same thing as airport security, sorry but it's my pet peeve when people conflate them.
stanmancan · 11h ago
We used to take two annual trips to the US, and cross the border every 4-6 weeks to shop, eat, and fill up our gas on the way home.
We haven't been there since this current administration took over, and have no plans on it until something changes.
Trumps comments regarding Canada, and the whole "51st state" rhetoric triggered the decision, but these stories absolutely play a part in it. I'm not about to put myself, or my family, in a position where someone might be detained for anywhere from days to weeks for no reason.
There's a big, beautiful world out there, and plenty of countries who are happy to have us and take our tourist dollars, all without me having to worry about getting detained for silly pictures on my phone. It's a pretty easy decision if you ask me.
promptdaddy · 11h ago
So sad that one little man can affect your view of an entire place. The tone of this thread really pins Trump as a true King.
jjkaczor · 11h ago
So sad that the policies and actions implemented by the current "regime" can affect the views of people that are not living there, or perhaps you just haven't been paying attention to the news since February 2025...
promptdaddy · 7h ago
The world might be much better off if we could remember that a place is that place, not just the few rich people who own the guns and the news.
jjkaczor · 4h ago
Places are filled with people... 70 million of whom wanted this nonsense and another 90 million too apathetic to vote, so willing to accept whatever the incoming administration would be.
Sure - America is a beautiful country, and people that I had met while on vacations and business trips were all very nice - I have driven thousands of miles (to/from Las Vegas from AB, Florida from ON) and never had a bad experience. But - unfortunately, the current political and cultural climate down there is just a little too "hot" - I hope it works out for the average person, but I don't have high hopes.
stanmancan · 4h ago
It’s not just one man, it’s also the millions of individuals who voted for him.
abnercoimbre · 8h ago
Ah yes let's ignore tech conferences like H.O.P.E. [0] or even my own [1] suffering drastic setbacks due to international attendance dropping off a cliff.
We should just lecture our audience to keep their head on straight and come travel.
> I don't have more recent statistics, but I'm going to assume that the number is the same or higher this year.
Why would you?
> Out of that population which could fill a decent-sized country, how many people have been treated so unfairly as the one in this article? How do those stats compare with other countries, and the inevitable abuses that occur in any vast bureaucracy?
Most people have an opinion about the US. They might have shared it on social media.
For comparison, the government of Turkey might care if you have insulted Erdoğan on social media (I don’t know; they might). But chances are you want to travel to Turkey while not having strong enough opinions to have flamed Erdoğan on social media. People care more about what they can see in Turkey; foreigners objectively spend more time on US political news than they spend thinking about the US national parks.
guappa · 9h ago
I'm quite sure that turkish police doesn't have time to waste checking the social accounts of people.
beej71 · 8h ago
Our friend from Norway (who is not a terrorist) already cancelled their US vacation plans before this story for exactly the reasons spelled out within it. We'll miss seeing them, but we get it.
discoutdynamite · 11h ago
The other picture showed Mads with a wooden pipe which he had made years prior
This is really why. Any evidence or suspicion of drug use or paraphenalia is a major offense. Even it they attempted to justify or explain it, its a major rejection criteria. Ive heard of several denials for suspicions of marijuana use, "DUDE WEED" memes and the like. They are really going hard on anything that looks like illicit substance use.
guax · 11h ago
Funnily enough weed is more legal in the US than Norway.
virtualritz · 12h ago
If Monty Python would be active today, this headline could have been a summary of a sketch of theirs.
US politics is outpacing satire at an unprecedented ratio.
ehehe · 8h ago
Remember that talk about fake candidates from north korea which will immediately fall off the interview when you ask them "how fat is kim jong un"?
I have a new one for american applicants - how fat is JD Vance??
airforce1 · 10h ago
Surprised this story has not been flagged as it's essentially political flamebait - an uncorroborated, unverifiable account from a single person trashing the current US administration and causing everyone to pile on their hot takes and equally unverifiable and possibly embellished anecdotes.
SV_BubbleTime · 9h ago
Justifies the popular ideology here. Why would it need evidence or corroboration? The bubble has decided.
mellosouls · 12h ago
Obviously if it is true this is ridiculous and condemnable but it would be nice to have more supporting evidence than this report.
SpaceL10n · 12h ago
Indeed. The only information we seem to have is the report this young man provided to his local newspaper. There are no corroborating witnesses or evidence thus far that I can find that confirm this incident actually occurred.
cadamsdotcom · 10h ago
The job of border control people is risky as hell. Let in the wrong person, and they’ll trace it back to you. Deny the right person and you can spin it as patriotism.
There’s no recourse if you’re uncertain. You can’t wave over a manager - you’re expected to process the huge queue with more piling in all day.
You work multiple long shifts per week. In a single shift you make thousands of decisions with huge impact to your life going forward - huge downsides for mistakes.
When you make 1000 decisions in a shift, even a 0.1% error rate is one wrong decision per shift!
And even if you are a nice person, you need to keep your job. When your biggest boss has an unsympathetic streak, you tip more into “my mistakes will be punished” mode.
tasuki · 10h ago
I kind of get all the other stuff, horrid, yes, but ok: US is a barbarian state.
But what is it with refusing water? Hydration is extremely important. I'm never voluntarily going near any situation which could result in me being refused water.
OsrsNeedsf2P · 11h ago
> "They threatened me with a minimum fine of $5,000 or five years in prison if I refused to provide the password to my phone."
I would write a witty message about how it seems like a good idea to put your phone in the carry-on luggage, but given they now ask for social media handles I don't think I will
mvdtnz · 11h ago
USA is a country I have always wanted to visit. No more. I will never set foot in your country simply because I refuse to deal with your border force. There are plenty of other countries out there that won't treat me like a criminal. Have you ever dealt with Japanese border staff? They could hardly be more grateful to welcome you.
airforce1 · 11h ago
...unless you run afoul of any of their many obscure laws, even unintentionally. I had a relative travel to Japan with his family. He's into locksport (watches Lock Picking Lawyer, etc). He had some lock picking paraphernalia on his person that he forgot about since he just carries it around 24/7 without thinking about it. Long story short, they were discovered in a metal detector at some point and Japanese security whisked him away to an interrogation room. He tried to explain locksport and youtube but the Japanese police were incredulous. He spent a full day in Japanese detention (leaving his wife and kids stranded in Tokyo without him) and at one point it was looking like he might be facing more serious charges, but then luckily someone from an American military base was able to bail him out somehow.
mvdtnz · 9h ago
This doesn't seem like an "obscure" law to me. In fact if this is a hobby of yours I would expect you to understand that it's not legal in a number of places.
airforce1 · 9h ago
It was an honest mistake, especially for someone who rarely travels.
It could happen to anyone in a country where possessing lock picks is not a criminal act. For example, your sibling might get you some picks in credit card form factor one year for Christmas. You put them in your wallet and forget about them. You travel a bit within the USA and nobody cares. Then years later you travel to Japan and are whisked away to jail because of a thing you forgot about in your wallet. The Japanese don't understand why an innocent civilian would ever have such a thing; therefore you must be a nefarious criminal.
DocTomoe · 12h ago
My employer has had a "no visiting the US with your real hardware, get a burner phone / a burner laptop from our IT department" for years now. The only other countries that have that kind of rule are Myanmar and Iran.
The US is not a friendly country, not even to allies.
Is this story real? I just checked, and nope, it's not April 1 yet.
Does anyone here have addition information?
affinepplan · 11h ago
gotta love how credulous you people are to the most insane statements by this administration, and how skeptical you are of the most unsurprising events in the world.
this just in: agency infamous for fragile egos and abuse of power got their ego bruised and abused their power.
> Mads Mikkelsen was not denied entry for any memes or political reasons, it was for his admitted drug use.
spaceribs · 12h ago
Cowardly, weak, and pathetic are the only attributes you can use to describe this behavior. I'm not saying this in order to "get a rise" or "inflame" a discussion here, but how can anyone really justify this?
givemeethekeys · 12h ago
This feels like a made up story just like so many other stories that get published to scare people from visiting China, India, Mexico, Columbia, etc.
SpaceL10n · 12h ago
Could be. The only information I can find about this is that the young man told his local newspaper what happened and then other news outlets just regurgitated the young man's account of what happened with zero fact-checking or corroborating evidence. Many people are taking one man's word as truth. I'd like more proof before coming to any conclusions.
cdreke · 11h ago
That is a very good point and a far more interesting one that this story is supposed to make. The matrix is here.
hackerbeat · 9h ago
The US is gone. Stay away!
krunck · 12h ago
This guy was certainly flagged before he got on the plane in Norway. The US has data sharing agreements with lots of countries. His online behaviour was already known. The Trump administration changed the filters for what they're looking for in people's profiles. This guy fit.
If you are going to upset the empire with your on and offline behaviour, you better practice solid information hygene.
knorker · 11h ago
Then why was his ESTA approved?
delfinom · 11h ago
ESTA is a farce to justify a fee to funnel into the country's endless debt hole.
tartoran · 11h ago
Based on?
knorker · 12h ago
ICE? I would have expected this to be handled by CBP.
docmars · 7h ago
Update: this story was debunked and is false, according to CBP directly:
I have a question, what if you show up with a freshly restored phone, or a dumb phone, or no phone at all? What if you're like me and have closed all of your social media accounts except Linked-in, that you're only on because you have to be?
Would you be looked at with suspicion at this point?
slicktux · 12h ago
I’d prefer a meme of Wilfred The Dog JD Vance…the bald one is creepy!
Mr_Eri_Atlov · 11h ago
"Comedy is legal again"
Actually, comedy is specifically illegal now
jbverschoor · 12h ago
I hope liking every episode of puppetregime is allowed
arewethereyeta · 11h ago
Charlie Hebdo
derelicta · 11h ago
So much from the Greatest Republic on Earth
whalesalad · 12h ago
Based on the amount of vance memes in my photo reel, I would be sent to Guantanamo bay.
dyauspitr · 12h ago
Should I start putting my phone in checked baggage? Is that allowed with the batteries and stuff? I guess I can carry a cheap older smartphone with a burner number for the actual flight.
serf · 12h ago
Your phone hasn't been a secure data-store across US national borders for 15+ years.
(if ever.)
axus · 12h ago
Before entering authoritarian countries, you should factory reset the phone, add a minimum contact list, and have a process for restoring what you need from the cloud. No need to store phone in luggage.
Also better to leave the laptop at home, if you don't want to wipe it.
tsimionescu · 12h ago
That wouldn't matter, you get your checked luggage before border control, don't you?
knorker · 12h ago
No.
Sure, if you get sent to secondary screening they may pick up your bag for you, but no.
Luggage pickup is after CBP. As far as I remember this is the case everywhere.
ryandrake · 12h ago
Every country I’ve ever travelled to, it’s: 1. Go through immigration, 2. Pick up your luggage, 3. Go through customs.
lifeinthevoid · 12h ago
Not really, in JFK terminal 4 at least, you get your luggage after passing through immigration.
treve · 12h ago
Delete social media or wipe your phone and restore on your destination. On a laptop, you could use a decoy OS on a separate partition.
The best way to seem like you're not hiding something is to have something else to show.
mosdl · 11h ago
Take out the sim and say the phone has no internet connection
lifeinthevoid · 12h ago
Sure, if you want to look extra suspicious.
pvtmert · 11h ago
tl:dr; remove memes before entering to the US. welcome to the most free country in the world.
> Mathias Rongved, a spokesperson at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has warned fellow Norwegians that it is their duty to be clued up on US regulations before entering the country. "Most trips to the US go without any particular problems," he said.
> "Entry regulations can change at short notice, and it is the traveller's responsibility to have valid documents and be familiar with the current entry regulations. It is the immigration authorities upon arrival who decide whether you are rejected at the border. Norwegian authorities cannot intervene in this decision.
jldugger · 11h ago
> Mads Mikkelsen
Small world?
happytoexplain · 11h ago
Small country, small pool of names.
keybored · 12h ago
The difference between the US and North Korea is that there are Westerners who think they can travel to the US without risking getting harassed for apparently having mocked the administration of the country.
kizer · 12h ago
What the hell is happening to our country :(
pstuart · 12h ago
A fascist coup is in play and they are actively dismantling all the safeguards to prevent it.
platevoltage · 11h ago
and we have at least 3.5 years to go.
tumsfestival · 4h ago
If you're lucky, that is. As things are going it could be another 4 years... Maybe more.
sys32768 · 11h ago
Article fails to explain why the image of him with a wooden pipe he made was so triggering to the border patrol agents.
Why is this even on HN?
lobo_tuerto · 12h ago
At least he was not detained and interrogated for it. Oh, wait...
jay-barronville · 10h ago
As someone who supported the current administration primarily due to their stated position on protecting free speech and fighting censorship, I find this story disgusting. I consider our First Amendment here in the U.S. to be the best and most unique thing about our country. I hated watching previous administrations step all over it, but in my opinion, the current administration is already proving to be objectively worse for the simple fact that they pretended to actually care about free speech only to pretty quickly start cracking down on speech they don’t like (e.g., see the Mahmoud Khalil and Rümeysa Öztürk cases—Öztürk’s case, in particular, is extremely egregious). As frustrating as it was when the Biden regime was cracking down on speech they didn’t like, at least they didn’t pretend to actually care about free speech. Running on a free speech platform and then implementing North Korea-style speech policies is such a massive betrayal.
On a separate note, border agents being able to force you (anyone, including U.S. citizens) to give them access to your devices has been a problem for a long time and certainly should be illegal. When traveling internationally, you should either (1) leave your personal devices behind or (2) back up your personal devices to an encrypted drive (a tiny SD Card is ideal) and factory reset them. I know the EFF has been fighting that issue for a while and I’m hoping that at some point in the near future, border agents will be prohibited from forcing folks to give access to their devices.
IncreasePosts · 12h ago
Is this the visitor's own take on what happened? Or did they tell him "you're denied entry because of your JD Vance meme"? Per the article they also asked him a bunch of other things like about right wing terrorism. Maybe his answers sucked? Maybe he was being evasive?
There was the case a few months ago of a Canadian lady being detained and denied entry "for no reason", and then it turned out she wanted to work in the US while on a tourist visa, and also was attempting to evade border patrol by flying to Mexico and entering via the southern border instead of the northern border or at an airport, where she had previously been denied admittance.
hermanzegerman · 11h ago
>Maybe his answers sucked? Maybe he was being evasive?
Maybe you should stop closing your eyes and start accepting the new reality?
This stuff has happened already multiple times. And Tricia McLaughlin will always invent a new lie to justify it
Has the professor shared what their messages actually were? This is the same exact issue that this thread is about - it's impossible to judge this without any kind of detail except the outcome.
The messages were described by the source in your article “reflect[ing] hatred toward Trump and can be described as terrorism”, and “hateful and conspiratorial messages”. Maybe they were? Who knows?
tensor · 11h ago
You mean the Canadian who went to the southern border to "get a new work permit" after securing a new job? Yeah, real sketchy that, applying for a work permit to work in the country.
IncreasePosts · 10h ago
You secure your work permit at a consular office in Canada, you don't try to enter the US on one type of visa with the intent to convert it to a work visa once you're in. That's called preconceived intent and is against the rules.
tensor · 10h ago
She was not on a visa. Believe it or not Canadians can travel to the US without a visa. She also had a lawyer who advised going to the border. It was all 100% legal and standard practice.
throwawayq3423 · 12h ago
So how many times does something like this need to happen before you accept that it's happening?
IncreasePosts · 11h ago
Exactly once. But, I would need to know what actually happened, as opposed to what a person thinks or reports having happened.
To share an anecdote, a person I knew in high school went around telling people that he got tasered for having a broken tail light on his car. Well, he did have a broken tail light, and he was tasered, but when the body cam footage came out, it tells the story of kid getting pulled over, being extremely combative with the initially polite officer, refusing to provide identification, refusing to exit the vehicle 10 times when the officer was attempting to lawfully arrest him, and then being tasered.
throwawayq3423 · 4h ago
So what circumstances are needed for you to believe something actually happened, besides several examples of the exact same behavior from the administration ?
paxys · 12h ago
Wonder what the "political correctness is bad" "nobody is allowed to crack jokes anymore" "cancel culture is out of control" crowd will say about this one...
jasonwatkinspdx · 12h ago
Based on decades of experience with my family: it's only political correctness when other people do it. When they do it, it's just common decency, common sense, family values, etc.
And as far as the original story, individual border agents should absolutely not be doing this to people because they have a meme on their phone, doubly so one where Vance shared a version of it himself. There is straight up no justification for this.
Dark days for the values the US professes to represent.
slg · 11h ago
>individual border agents should absolutely not be doing this
One of the underdiscussed aspects of an authoritarian regime is that it creates countless little tyrants that all feel empowered to exert whatever power they have in any way they see fit.
markx2 · 11h ago
2006. O'Hare. I'm close to the front when exiting a UK > US plane. The 'agent' sees an implant (self-done years prior) in the back of my right hand. Calls it 'brutal'. I was directed to sit in a chair until way after the whole flight had disembarked. I was then questioned about my luggage, reasons for visiting.
Some years later "Pull the guy with tattoos". Full search.
Year or two after that, New York, pulled from the queue, directed to stand in a clear box. "Do not move your feet from those markings". My young daughter had to stand and watch.
Another trip. My passport photo did not fit their criteria. "Why did you shave your head?" .. "Because it was hot" .. repeat that whole interaction several times.
I am so so happy that I never have to visit the USA again and it's solely because of the 'people' assigned as 'guards'.
switchbak · 11h ago
I had automatic weapons pointed at me and yelled at AFTER being waved through the crossing at the Ambassador bridge. 2010 era. I guess they wanted a second look.
Most border agents are brutal, regardless of the current administration. But things do seem to get worse when the Republicans/MAGA are in. I wouldn't even want to think about how they'll act if a big terrorist attack comes.
slg · 11h ago
Frankly, I think this type of comment minimizes what is happening here. These anecdotes are nothing close to what is detailed in the story and they don't sound particularly tyrannical or even necessarily out of line. As an American, I have experienced similar things when traveling abroad in other western countries. What this article describes is much worse.
DudeOpotomus · 11h ago
Isnt that why you did all that to your body? To get attention from other people? This was just not the kind of attention you thought you'd get...
Drawing attention to yourself results in attention. Who knew.
platevoltage · 11h ago
This is the type of comment I would expect from someone who tells women to go out in public in a potato sack to avoid unwanted attention, and if they choose not to, the harassment is their fault.
harry8 · 12h ago
> doubly so one where Vance shared a version of it himself
No. Should have precisely zero baring on anything at all.
Reminder: Support of free speech requires support of the right to say things that you loathe by people you hate or you don’t support free speech.
IIAOPSW · 11h ago
It is "doubly so" because the border guard was wrong to judge the content as "lese majeste" on account of JD himself sharing it, and was wrong that "lese majeste" is applicable in America. The guard was wrong, and even if one doesn't agree with one of the reasons they were wrong because they don't share those values, the guard would still be wrong for the other reason. Therefore they were doubly wrong.
harry8 · 8h ago
I was against Charles Manson, doubly so because he had a bad haircut.
See it?
MegaButts · 11h ago
> Support of free speech requires support of the right to say things
I know you didn't mean it this way, but both sides believe this to be true depending on how you define "the right"
> Reminder: Support of free speech requires support of the right to say things that you loathe by people you hate or you don’t support free speech.
No it doesn't. You're putting arbitrary limits to suit your views. You can support free speech for American citizens and also support using a foreigner's speech to determine whether or not we allow them into the country. That's just smart border policy. We should be vetting who we allow into our country, and using their speech is one way to vet them.
Obviously not allowing someone in over a bald JD Vance meme is stupid. But the idea that we have to allow all foreigners the same level of free speech without it affecting their chances of getting into the country is also stupid.
platevoltage · 11h ago
Absolutely not. If you find out that the person who is trying to enter the country has made creditable threats to the USA, Sure, but that's also illegal for a citizen to do. Saying that the president is a poopy-head on Facebook doesn't count, and says nothing about what said person's behavior will be like once they are in our borders.
cogman10 · 11h ago
Pretty much where I stand. Some speech is criminalized for good reason (for example, planning to commit a crime). However, barring that, no speech should penalized. In particular, speech criticizing actions of the government or a government official should be especially protected.
The bar for when speech should be criminalized/penalized by the government should be very high.
For private entities I'm far more tolerate of censorship especially since it cuts both ways. Allowing or banning speech can directly impact a company's bottom line and should be regulated by customers choosing to interact with or avoid platforms.
platevoltage · 11h ago
Private entities are a completely different conversation. It drives me up the wall when people talk about "free speech" when they have a comment deleted on social media. (I'm not saying you said this btw)
Bhilai · 11h ago
The first amendment of the US constitution grants freedom of speech to all persons. Courts have interpreted that first amendment applies broadly, even to non-citizens.
platevoltage · 11h ago
I find it hard to believe that THIS Supreme Court would re-affirm this decision if it ever came up.
Y_Y · 10h ago
You raise a good point, but I'll opine that I don't think it's necessarily a broad definition of "person" that includes non-citizens.
titzer · 11h ago
> We should be vetting who we allow into our country, and using their speech is one way to vet them.
Who is this "we" and what rules govern these "we"? What are the consequences for this "we" just up and violating the rules or throwing those rules out altogether to grift, stay in power and persecute those they hate?
macinjosh · 11h ago
The we is the people elected through democratic means to execute the law and the people they appoint.
Maybe someday the civilized world will realize democracy often ends in the case of two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
platevoltage · 11h ago
Oh come on. The very reason this is even happening is because the person with less votes was installed as president in 2016.
hermanzegerman · 12h ago
What values does the US represent?
wk_end · 11h ago
Note that they said "professes to represent" (emphasis mine). What the US professes to represent and what it actually represents for various people aren't totally unrelated, but it's a relationship that's always been pretty fraught.
snickerdoodle12 · 11h ago
Hunting down brown people and shipping them off to concentration camps, based on what's been happening the past few months.
jasonwatkinspdx · 12h ago
Supposedly freedom of speech for one. Hard to see that as being real today.
gwbennett · 11h ago
It was harder to see during COVID.
Leszek · 10h ago
And yet here you are saying it.
surgical_fire · 11h ago
Based on the current administration, I can think of 14 words that I will refuse to repeat here.
Y_Y · 10h ago
I assume your referring to this
> We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children
and further that you're intending to use it as a burn on Trump and his government?
Regardless of what you think about them and Neo-Nazis/white supremacists, I think it's unfair because the policies of the current administration with regard to war, debt, environmentalism etc. evince a total disregard for the futures of children of any colour.
surgical_fire · 3h ago
> I think it's unfair because the policies of the current administration with regard to war, debt, environmentalism etc. evince a total disregard for the futures of children of any colour.
That is due to incompetence, not desire.
happytoexplain · 12h ago
Freedom seems like the obvious example here, unless I'm not catching your meaning.
mensetmanusman · 11h ago
You will only get edgy responses, most can’t comprehend what to think when people acting under a system of values fail to reach their proposed ideals.
ajuc · 11h ago
At this point mostly hypocrisy.
LtWorf · 10h ago
violence, oppression, and hypocrisy about it all
glenstein · 11h ago
I know that the likes of fact checking and checking for hypocrisy draws eye rolls in the present environment (which in and of itself I find disappointing), but I do think an interesting variation on it would be to track what underlining principle is associated with any particular argument and to track adherence to principles over time. Of limited utility in an information ecosystem that's deeply indifferent to litigating disagreements on the basis of factual accuracy, but I feel like bsing your way out of inconsistent principles is at least harder.
skywhopper · 11h ago
Unfortunately, it’s pretty clear that there are strict quotas in place and border agents are expected to refuse entry to a certain number of people every day. The quotas are set by delusional xenophobes and thus aren’t remotely realistic, but border agents must find someone to kick out, so they latch onto any excuse. It’s truly sad and pathetic and evil.
sillyfluke · 12h ago
The "real" Mads Mikkelsen should fly into the US with the meme on his phone and post the bald JD Vance on his social media before his flight. He'll have the honor of being the second Mads Mikkelsen to be deported by this snowflake administration.
ortusdux · 12h ago
I fully expect to see this image on a shirt the next time I'm in line at security.
bjourne · 11h ago
They usually resort to legalisms for cases like this: "The guy wasn't an American citizen so first amendment doesn't apply. The border guard was ENTITLED to harass him. America #1!!"
orangecat · 11h ago
Wonder what the "political correctness is bad" "nobody is allowed to crack jokes anymore" "cancel culture is out of control" crowd will say about this one
As someone who would be closer to that side than the opposite: this is terrible and unacceptable.
(It is not that hard to have actual principles)
brewdad · 11h ago
It may not be hard but it does seem rare these days.
yodsanklai · 12h ago
Don't worry, they'll find a way to justify it.
sjsdaiuasgdia · 12h ago
Wilhoit's Law
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition. There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
aaronbrethorst · 11h ago
“For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law.”
My favorite thing about Wilhoit's Law is I worked with Frank Wilhoit for several years and still occasionally meet up with him. He's one of the most interesting and insightful people I know. He loves phrasing things in an unconventional way to encourage people to think about what's being said instead of thinking about the next thing they're about to say.
sjsdaiuasgdia · 11h ago
Yeah, it's a pretty great coincidence.
jrochkind1 · 11h ago
They're gone, they don't exist anymore. Turns out they were fine as long as it was fascism.
dfxm12 · 11h ago
Nothing, because they don't care about jokes, political correctness or cancel culture. They care about fascism and grabbing more power for themselves.
recursivedoubts · 12h ago
i think political correctness is bad and that this is bad (and that the meme is very funny) too
happytoexplain · 11h ago
Thinking political correctness is bad does not necessarily put you in the "political correctness is bad" camp. I think political correctness is often bad, but I am not part of that "camp", i.e. people who irrationally hate things that they use "political correctness" as a broad disparaging label for.
recursivedoubts · 10h ago
I think that thinking political correctness is bad puts me pretty firmly in the "political correctness is bad" camp.
mellosouls · 12h ago
As did JD Vance who retweeted them himself.
throwawayq3423 · 12h ago
While he oversees a government that enforces punitive actions on speech. Guess which action is more important?
randallsquared · 11h ago
He oversees almost nothing. The VP has no constitutional powers except to tiebreak the senate and succeed the president.
throwawayq3423 · 7h ago
That's like saying Stephen Miller has no power. Technically no, but he is running the show.
Him and the people that backed him are the machine behind of all of this.
tclancy · 11h ago
And yet coming out against this would carry significant weight.
blueflow · 11h ago
Probably "Haha, our champion won. At least yours didn't."
kelseyfrog · 11h ago
Every generation has its "free-speech advocates" moaning, "you can’t say anything anymore." The current panics: political correctness, cancel culture, jokes under siege, has the usual suspects asking, "What will the free-speech crowd say about this one?"
This is a perfect example of Bourdieu's idea of symbolic violence and the violence of the arbitrary.
The uncomfortable truth is, for many the thrill isn't in enforcing fair rules, or even unfair ones. The thrill is in the power to enforce arbitrary rules. The point isn't who gets punished, it's that someone can be, at a moment's notice, for no coherent reason. And the joy is in unpredictability, in knowing they can shift the rules under your feet and there's no one appeal to.
This is the logic sitting beneath every hand-wringing editorial and rage-bait thread about "cancel culture run amok." The goal is sovereignty, not consistency. It's about who gets to draw the lines and when they can redraw them. Arbitrary enforcement isn't a bug. It’s the feature.
The clever "gotcha" crowd falls flat when they imagine that, by exposing contradictions, they'll force a confession, a moment of logic, an admission, and surrender. But that moment never comes. When the point is arbitrariness, contradiction isn't a failure. It's the currency of power. Pointing it out only proves you're not the one with power.
What will the "PC culture" critics say? Probably what they’ve always said. Remember, it's not about the arguments. It's about who gets to arbitrate, who gets to punish, and who gets to laugh last.
It always has been.
beepbooptheory · 11h ago
Yes, we hear versions of this conceit a lot, but how does it play out? Like where exactly is this arbritrary power exercised in your mind? Where is the payout? In each discrete call out or critique? Is the world in your view just full of a million tyrants fighting for various fiefdoms, or is there just one collective bad faith actor here? How can you marry here both the overarching individualism which would make this rendering possible with collective phenomena we actually see with this stuff?
This really is just what we have been hearing from the cultural right for a long time, masked as a kind both-sides/human-nature take. It sounds good, in that it gives something like general principle to subsume all the instances. But it just doesn't really make sense in the actually existing world. How could any given side even know they are the new hegemon, the new line-drawers, at any given moment. At what point are they rewarded with regard to the influence they wield? What does it even look like? Do you have examples? Sovereignty implies a concentration of something like power, but your very point here seems to decentralize sovereignty to the point of it being unrecognizable as such. Its like taking something very individual and trying to stretch it across everything in awkward way.
Just simply: how does this actually work? When does whatever side thats on top actually get to feel good, actually get to be the sovereign?
kelseyfrog · 10h ago
It sounds like you're asking what is the scope of this sovereignty?
In my experience, the scope is the establishment of a status hierarchy.
We love to put ourselves in a privileged position. In most internet discussion, the status hierarchy extends throughout the duration of the encounter. In most Thanksgivings, the crazy uncle goes away at the end of the night, in marriages, it extends for the duration of the relationship. It's fundamentally tied to the social engagement.
beepbooptheory · 9h ago
Yes gotcha. But just try to think it through carefully: does this really capture what is going on in these many instances? There is an implication here maybe that you have been on the short end of some interactions in the past, did you really feel subjugated by some abstract power then? Did it really seem like the person on the other end was getting some satisfaction, some giddy kickback from their "sovereignty"?
Does it not feel at least a little juvenile to think like this, if you look at it critically, maybe from a little more the outside than you seem to be? These kind of pat armchair psychologies that answer in one breath the phenomena of culture, of human interaction feel just extremely schoolyard to me... but I guess ymmv.
At the very least: its unfalsifiable; one could easily go the other way and say "people love to belong to a group, and being able to police another group's language/jokes/etc is the best mechanism for reinforcing their belonging".
To picture you and your smug interlocutor as ever placed in some asymmetric structure where they are the king and you are the pauper belies the staying power of these controversies, the clear struggle they manifest. You make it sound so much like there never even is a battle, just spontaneous winners and losers.
I don't want to come off as harsh, but what you are arguing for is the logic of a loser, in the technical sense. Its asserting a projection you/others have of perceived intellectual enemies as a kind social theory for everything. It dooms you to fatalism you just dont need to have! Humans, for better or worse have a capacity for much more complicated motives. You do not need to "Mean Girls" the entire world!
kelseyfrog · 9h ago
It really does capture what's going on because for decades I used to be the aggressor. That was exactly the mentality I held along with people from that group. Like recognizes like then and now.
I'm curious though, you seem to have not experienced this sort of internet domineering?
mindslight · 8h ago
It seems like we're seeing this exact dynamic play out with regards to starting wars, as well.
extr · 11h ago
AI slop
kelseyfrog · 11h ago
You're tilting at windmills, friend. Was there a point you agreed or disagreed with?
The whole “political correctness is so bad that we need to elect the current regime” crew only ever really wanted to feel aligned with power and are more or less indifferent to what that power does so long as they are periodically made to feel reassured that they are on the right side of it.
throwawayq3423 · 7h ago
Everything Trump does in the coming months will be met by his fans with either "fake news" or "we are better off with a king anyways."
whateveracct · 12h ago
legalize comedy!
adamtaylor_13 · 11h ago
Since most of us are rational, logically consistent people I think we’d condemn this as outrageous. Like any rational free-thinking American should.
happytoexplain · 11h ago
I disagree that "most" of the people in the ideological camp the parent is alluding to are rational and logically consistent.
Analemma_ · 12h ago
A little while ago Scott Alexander did a lengthy post about how Curtis Yarvin, aka Moldbug, has essentially backtracked on everything he ever said about tyranny and these days gleefully cheers on all the things he decried in his early writing. Yarvin's response was, essentially, "You actually believed that I believed that stuff? lmao, idiot. This was about power and now we have it, piss off." Yarvin is unusually candid compared to most commentators and so I wouldn't expect a similar response here, but that's what's happening.
CoastalCoder · 12h ago
This greatly concerns me.
I'm not a historian, but this reminds me a bit of the prelude to the French Revolution: a growing list of grievances against a ruling class by a population that feels abused, disenfranchised, and numerous.
Even if one expects to enjoy a sense of Schadenfreude were such a revolution/slaughter to occur, our staples of daily life (food, medicine, electricity, fuel) are distributed over such a geographically large network, that almost everyone on the country would suffer greatly.
I imagine.
nostrademons · 11h ago
Yeah, I see a whole lot of media parallels to Nazi Germany, but the two historical analogues that really pop to mind for me are the French Revolution and the Breakup of Yugoslavia. Both of which ended in slaughter - the Napoleonic Wars for the former and ethnic cleansing for the latter. People are crying dictatorship now, but I don't see that being the ending here; rather, I see it as being war and death on a massive scale.
The other thing to remember about the French Revolution was that nearly all the revolutionaries who came to power during it were dead by the end of it. The folks who are crying "We're in power now, suckas!" are being extremely stupid. Power doesn't last long at times like this.
The other thing that scares me is that the best place to be in all those historical times of crisis was an ocean away from the place where the crisis starts. But that doesn't work today; we have weapons with global reach that can level whole cities in 30 minutes. If the U.S. disintegrates nowhere on earth is safe.
TremendousJudge · 11h ago
> If the U.S. disintegrates nowhere on earth is safe.
This is a very Hollywood action film way of seeing the world. In the case of an American civil war, it's unlikely that it will be fought using nuclear weapons, and in that case, it's unlikely that they would use any on say, Chile, or Australia.
Europeans are screwed though.
nostrademons · 11h ago
That's not really the threat model. It's that the U.S. has played the role of policing the world's oceans and world's regional conflicts since WW2. If the U.S. descends into civil war, it will be too preoccupied with internal power struggles to continue to play that role. Many, many countries elsewhere in the world will take the opportunity to settle old scores and jockey for regional advantage. Meanwhile, the population in many countries is supported by food imports that can only be sustained while global trade can freely occur.
If you live in Chile, the main danger is not that the U.S. drops a nuke on you. It's that Pakistan (freed from fear of international condemnation) drops a nuke in India, which then can no longer export rice to Saudi Arabia, where revolt breaks out, which cuts off the flow of oil, which makes Chile's economy grind to a halt.
Sanzig · 11h ago
> Pakistan (freed from fear of international condemnation) drops a nuke in India
India is also a nuclear state, so this is pretty unlikely unless the wheels really come off the deterrence strategy. North Korea attacking South Korea perhaps, but even that seems unlikely as it would greatly anger NK's closest ally of China.
keybored · 9h ago
> That's not really the threat model. It's that the U.S. has played the role of policing the world's oceans and world's regional conflicts since WW2. If the U.S. descends into civil war, it will be too preoccupied with internal power struggles to continue to play that role. Many, many countries elsewhere in the world will take the opportunity to settle old scores and jockey for regional advantage. Meanwhile, the population in many countries is supported by food imports that can only be sustained while global trade can freely occur.
So it’s not the Hollywood action movie view of the world. It’s just the standard 2005 version of Pax Americana make-believe.
Meanwhile Israel has attacked Iran and its US ally said “we want to do that too”.
jasonwatkinspdx · 11h ago
There's some pretty clear parallels to the McCarthy era as well.
History rhymes.
JadeNB · 11h ago
When I grew up, I found history boring, and didn't understand why we were made to study it. I'd like to think it's partly because I was taught typical jingoistic rah-rah US history, but that's at best only part of the reason.
Anyway, even I, with my paltry education in history, can see the historical parallels. And here I am, versus an oligarchic class that had the opportunity for a world-class education, and surely knows at least as much history as I do. I wonder if they really believe that they've found the way to prevent the inevitable consequences this time, or if they just think that they'll have found some way out, possibly just having passed the buck to the next generation, before the consequences for them come to pass.
It's been interesting watching who actually places rule of law and liberty above partisanship -- the Cheneys, tellingly, or Bill Kristol, or the Cato Institute -- and who has cheerfully befouled every declared principle they held in the name of untrammeled power. There are a number of law professors who talked a good game about common law liberty when the bad guy was the EPA, but signed on with Trump I and II the second they realized that tyranny was going to work in favor of their chosen policy preferences. Deeply dispiriting.
JadeNB · 11h ago
Yeah, going back and telling 2000 me and 2012 me that the Cheneys and Mitt Romney would become the conscience of the Republican party would have been interesting.
TremendousJudge · 11h ago
Who would you say was the conscience of the Republican party in 2012? What were they arguing for? Serious question, not American, follow their politics from afar.
cogman10 · 11h ago
I'd argue that republicans lost their conscience with Nixon. It doubly got worse with Reagan.
Democrats lost their conscience with Clinton.
The last republican president with a clear conscience was probably Bush Sr. He was also crucified for it (hence the single term). He foolishly let reason about running a government get in the way of party bluster and that ended his career.
Carter was the last democrat president with a conscience and he also was lambasted for it.
Unfortunately in the US, principles and conscience haven't resulted in party success in the last 50 years.
jasonwatkinspdx · 11h ago
McCain is probably who a lot of people would name. I disagreed with him about a lot of policy specifics, but do think he was genuine in wanting to do right by voters and the nation.
cyberax · 7h ago
But there's a silver lining. Democrats have been mostly true to their ideas.
And the difference is really striking.
Once Republicans got power, they immediately forgot basically ALL their ideals: small government, States rights, adherence to law, budget discipline, etc.
FrustratedMonky · 11h ago
Yarvin is missing the boat.
Just because who he voted for got the power, does not mean Yarvin got the power.
"Me Yarvin, Me powerful now". Is not true. What power does he think he has.???
The real question is, what has to happen before these people 'learn', or 'understand' that they were duped. What would it take for them to really grasp how they were played? Like all those Germans that shrug, 'I didn't know'.
Yarvin tells Scott that today’s populist right is too weak to fear, while the real authoritarian danger comes from the prestige-driven institutions that already steer American life. His shift since 2008 isn’t a sell-out but a recognition that the fuel of mass democracy has run low and that the managerial regime’s ongoing failures are the greater evil.
xnx · 10h ago
"The left wanted to make comedy illegal. You can't make fun of anything... Nothing's funny"
micromacrofoot · 11h ago
They don't care, there's no compass, it's only I win/you lose.
I have a sibling that's deep into this, he would say "haha owned"
thaumasiotes · 10h ago
Probably "what's the connection?"
In this case, we have a report that someone was denied entry over an image of JD Vance.
From the same report, we have the facts that JD Vance approved of the meme the image was taken from, using it himself; and that the image provoked border control agents into interrogating the person about his ties to "right-wing extremism". Not usually something you'd expect from someone about whom the only thing you know is that he appears to be criticizing right-wing politicians.
It seems safe to conclude that politics weren't a concern. If you wanted to diagnose what happened, this looks more like the agents were looking to turn people away and seized on whatever they thought they could make work.
noobermin · 12h ago
This meme "what about cancel culture" is no longer an interesting point anymore. Certainly online, most of Trump's fans don't care. Just stop taking these kind of conservatives you don't know personally seriously and just assume bad faith by default.
platevoltage · 11h ago
I've stopped taking these kinds of conservatives that I DO know personally seriously.
docmars · 11h ago
As a deplorable myself, I disagree with this decision and think it's ridiculous - but I do find the nature of it quite funny still.
Also remember that JD Vance himself has plenty of air time laughing at these memes, and they aren't considered threatening like calling out Biden's cognitive decline with memes making fun of it.
The overall response to memes of this nature are very different on either side. One side wants to censor the entire internet and penalize people for daring to share something politically incorrect, while the other caught an outsider who may harbor threatening sentiments about our nation, with the intent to harm - although I sincerely don't think that's the case here.
Part of the irony here is that you'll more likely find a right-winger with more JD Vance memes on their phone than this guy.
The mass-censorship has a much deeper weight to it than inconveniencing 1 tourist, and I think it's a little surprising this needs to be explained.
throwawayq3423 · 12h ago
The free speech crowd was never serious, they just want power and control over speech they don't like.
jbm · 11h ago
I'm pretty sure there is a free speech crowd that was serious about this; I just don't think it's as big as it is portrayed, maybe 5% of the US population at most. No one likes Free Speech when they are on the receiving end, but you learn to tolerate it.
jimbokun · 11h ago
I hate censorship in all its forms. And it should surprise no one that the Trump administration have matched and exceeded the Biden administration's levels of free speech infringement.
mellosouls · 12h ago
In my case they will condemn it if it is true, while asking for more evidence than this single-source report so we can establish that is the case.
Ar-Curunir · 12h ago
Did you hold that attitude while complaining about cancel culture? Or is asking for more evidence something that is only necessary when it happens to your political opponents?
mellosouls · 11h ago
I'm a man of the left who thinks cancel-culture stinks and have campaigned against it for years, including warning those on "my side" (who you wrongly call my political opponents) that one day the boot would be on the other foot.
I condemn cancel-culture full stop whether its the right-wing mcarthyism of the fifties or the leftist bullies of the last decade.
Do you?
thrownaway561 · 12h ago
you people have been had... RTFA... a tourist "claims" this happened. The tourist name is Mads Mikkelsen??? The dude has the same name as the fucking actor??? Really??? Seriously people, learn when things smell of bullshit and when it doesn't.
DocTomoe · 12h ago
You are aware that names are not UUIDs, and that the same name can be used by several people, right? Especially since Mikkelsen is a rather common Danish surname (with around 35000 people named that) and Mads having been a very popular boy's name in the 1990s?
knowaveragejoe · 11h ago
Ah yes, it's a conspiracy and you spotted the critical oversight on their part. Real astute.
It's not actually that unlikely for other people to possess the name.
_lateralus_ · 12h ago
lmao no shot this actually happened, or at least the meme was not the reason he was denied entry
3hoss · 12h ago
Mads Mikkelsen? I'm very skeptical that this is real, and kind of disappointed that HN is being so credulous.
surgical_fire · 11h ago
Something tells me that you are the kind of person that would put a unique constraint on a table for the combination of first_name and last_name.
affinepplan · 11h ago
Some People In The World Sometimes Have The Same Name As Each Other
Huh, I didn't know SSB let you do combined first/last name searches, I assumed it would only let you search the names individually
(Is Tromsø where they keep all the spare Mads Mikkelsens??)
qoez · 12h ago
His name was "Mads Mikkelsen", like the actor? Either he gave a fake name or this story is made up.
strangecasts · 11h ago
It would be quite a feat for the local paper [1] to interview him without realizing his name was fake!
Mads and Mikkelsen are both common Norwegian names (SSB has >4000 Mads and Mikkelsens individually), and unless his parents were big Refn enthusiasts I don't think they would have been aware of the actor...
https://archive.ph/h3Uf4 couldn't capture it well but you can see has his name is referenced as Mads Mikkelsen.
FeteCommuniste · 12h ago
That's like saying a news story about an American was fake because his name was "Michael Jordan" or "David Robinson." Some names are really common.
keybored · 11h ago
“His name is John Smith? Big Fake warning bells!”
qoez · 12h ago
To play devils advocate: I have a feeling the rules around what's allowed on social media according to these new rules are pretty vague and so whoever vetted this ended up being the judge in this case. I doubt jd vance made some memo about not allowing bald vance meme sharers from entering the country.
platevoltage · 11h ago
Do you doubt that there was a memo sent out that instructed CPD to deny entry to anyone who has anything negative to say about the administration? Because that seems like exactly something this admin would do.
* Do we agree that a law enforcement arm of any country should be allowed to perform warrantless searches of electronic devices?
* Do we find it acceptable that persons with critical views are denied entry to countries that profess protection of speech for its citizens?
* If we find either of the above objectionable, what should we be doing to stop it?
The reality is that this is on the rise, not just in the USA but globally, and we should be having frank discussions on whether this is acceptable or not given its repercussions.
For context, despite my critique of an unnamed EMEA government, they’ve happily let me into their country repeatedly to do work for an employer, associate with my colleagues, and perform volunteer work within its borders. On the flip side, I have serious doubts about my ability to enter authoritarian regimes like China because of my outspoken critique of government policies, regardless of my intentions within their borders.
This [broader issue] is what we should be discussing, not nuanced specifics over a single incident.
That’s what I’m getting at, here. Folks are digging into the details of what’s in front of them instead of stepping back and looking at the bigger picture first.
From a practical standpoint it’s completely unworkable to require an actual judge to evaluate every person coming in and out to issue or deny a warrant. The costs alone are staggering.
Not just citizens: AIUI the various US Constitution Amendments apply to everyone with-in the US. And more generally, the US sees itself—or at least its ideals—as the model people should strive for ("City upon a Hill").
Mostly correct (depends on which amendment), but technically this guy didn’t cross into the US yet since he hadn’t cleared customs and border control…so the first amendment doesn’t apply to him.
No where does it say "on US soil" or "for US Citizens," and that is absolutely 100% by design based on the founding fathers philosophy which can be read in the declaration of independence.
It states plainly and unqualified "make no law abridging the freedom of speech." This both asserts that there is a freedom of speech that exists outside of the government and that congress shall make no law abridging it.
In their philosophy, the government purposefully doesn't grant the right to freedom of speech, because the founding fathers argument was that their, and all people's, natural god given (literally) rights are why they were justified in rebelling against the British government -- that rights exist outside of, and above, the government.
What we are seeing now is an assault on the idea of rights. This border control action is a salami slicing tactic against the idea of rights itself. To rob others of their dignity... their freedom to express themselves and form their own beliefs and convictions without consequences from the government means that it is no longer a right to have your own opinions and assessments, but instead that is a privilege reserved only for "the protected."
Rights exist as a counter-force to tyranny and the entire idea, language, and history of rights exists in the context of when it is justified to break the rules of authoritarian governments and fight tyranny. To call something a right is to say it is worth breaking the law to protect because it exists above law. The declaration of independence is absolutely crystal clear that rights supersede law which is why the founders of America were justified in violating British law and forming a government that protects rights rather than violates them.
When you do not protect the rights of others, it is a prelude to losing your own rights because once a right is turned into a privilege for anybody, structurally it has been turned into a privilege for everybody because the "right" is no longer derived from human dignity, but from law. Eventually you will disagree with those in power, and you will come to discover the same techniques used to weaken others rights will weaken your own. There is always a pretext or game to be played. Slavery was made illegal, but prisoners are allowed to be enslaved. Drug law turned people into criminals, which gave the government permission to take away their rights and force them into slave labor, which is a clear moral hazard. Denaturalization is something that can happen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denaturalization#Human_rights
If freedom of speech can only be denied to those who are not protected by state, then the state will figure out how to put you in the class of unprotected people, whether that is foreigner or criminal.
By the time you feel at risk of your own rights being violated, you will find yourself and everyone else have been habituated to ask if that specific person's rights should be protected rather than if a right has been violated or if you would feel robbed of your own dignity in that same situation, and the answer will be no, because the cost of answering yes will be too unbearable to acknowledge because doing so both creates a sense of personal responsibility and puts you at mortal risk while simultaneously making you feel alone, since nobody else seems to be provoked enough to act.
It took Erdogan 20 years to dismantle the core of the secular republic for example , arguably he hasn’t finished it.
I’ve posted a lot of pro-Taiwan content and not once have I ever been interrogated at the Chinese borders. Many times they don’t even talk to me.
Unless you are a well-known and famous agitator, I highly doubt they will even care about you.
IRL, the dictatorships we have don’t actually control the population that much. As long as it doesn’t create problems for the administration , nobody cares what you talk about..
I think you're looking at this point the wrong way around: If the people bringing these stories up had good examples, they should use those instead of these questionable ones. Using these stories instead makes it look like the US is doing a good job of not overreaching.
I did not keep the count of many times I crossed each borders, but I can assure you it was pretty much always easier to get into China than it was to get into the US (and that was before Trump).
Chinese authorities are no jokes, but the amount of non sense you need to put up to get into the free land, is very high.
Yes, but it's (IIRC) that it's so blatantly happening in the Land of the Free World where the first amendment of the constitution is touted as the best law ever written in history.
When it comes to border control, I've looked into several of these outrageous claims, and they consistently omit critical details that point to a valid reason for denial. Being denied entry and then having an overzealous border agent tsk-tsk at your meme is not nearly the same thing as being denied entry or thrown in jail because of it. And now OP primes us to think that the details don't really matter. I think they do, because every conversation on the current administration is now tainted by propaganda (in both directions).
They just tell you that you they are denying you entry and putting you on the next plane back.
That being said, we are clearly only getting one side of the story and I'd love to know what _exactly_ that found on his phone, but given how consistent the stories have been (pulled into secondary, forced to unlock personal media under threats of imprisonment, strip search, disappearance for a few days or weeks) I am inclined to move this from the "anecdotes" to "anecdata" to something-very-close-to-data category.
If you chose to rebutt this with the "millions of people come in to the US every year with absolutely no problem" I'd like to say that only 0.02 people die by train per 100,000,000 miles travelled. Does that mean I don't want the NTSB to investigate train crashes or that these peoples deaths (and injuries) don't matter because they comprise such a low percentage?*
I am extremely sympathetic to his position of his phone automatically downloading media he is sent. My phone's WhatsApp settings came with "auto-download any images people send you to your (local, on-device) gallery" set as default. I also had Google Photos installed, which had the option of "auto back-up any images/videos you store on your phone to your Google Photos account" which I turned on because I break my phones often. The result was that several relatives with questionable (and opposite) political tastes have their memes (think [pollitician x] next to a [hate symbol]" (got it? Good. It's not the one you're thinking of!) automatically stored on my phone and backed up to my Google Photos account, not even accounting for the automatic WhatsApp backup that is stored on my Google Drive account.
From previous reporting, the agents plug in the device into a forensic analyzer which dumps out a list of images/videos that were saved (note the distinction between "that you saved" and "that were saved") and use it against you.
I can't imagine what it must feel like to arrive here from Norway to go camping and be subject to a strip-search and interrogation because someone you may not even consider a friend sent you some shitty memes a few years ago. Or, in this case, because they found a "anti-JD-vance" meme that even JD vance seems to think is fine?
[0] https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics...
I think the title is deficient and should be based on this higher-weighted fact, over the weaker phrasing "refused entry".
"Tourist jailed without trial for possessing political cartoon"
I don’t doubt that it’s possible he was denied because of the Vance image and that in itself says something terrible about the current state of affairs.
But I think it’s more likely that he was stopped based on some other red flag like not having a return ticket and denied because of that.
No comments yet
Jail almost by definition means pretrial detention, so "jailed without trial" is a tautology.
Nitpicking about the precise legal terminology is a bit pointless in this context.
If some protester got arrested for protesting, the reasonable thing to do is to call it just that, not "protester jailed without trial for protesting".
> A jail holds people for shorter periods of time (for example, less than a year) or for pre-trial detention and is usually operated by a local government, typically the county sheriff.
> A prison or penitentiary holds people for longer periods of time, such as many years, and is operated by a state or federal government. After a conviction, a sentenced person is sent to prison.
Here's an example of it used that way in Virginia's laws, at https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter1/secti...
> The authorized punishments for conviction of a misdemeanor are:
> (a) For Class 1 misdemeanors, confinement in jail for not more than twelve months and a fine of not more than $2,500, either or both.
A state (not federal) senator and his wife were attempted murdered, but both survived and are expected to recover.
Your comment frames it as if 2 members of federal congress were assassinated which would have been a much bigger deal. State politicians being killed is still shocking and tragic, but try to be precise in your language as to not mislead.
This is not a good sign for democracy in the US. I think a healthy response would be protests, investigations, state and federal "comissions" looking into domestic political terrorism, etc. A whole lot of consequences. Instead there is nothing.
In contrast, in Brazil (not even a best example of a healthiest democracy) the assassination of a city councilwoman (city! not even state!) has been a dominant story in politics for many years and has never completely fallen out of public attention. It's been close to a decade!
I'm not one to quickly say "fascism" or to spell out doom but even to me this is a crystal clear sign of a system starting to fail...
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marielle_Franco
I've even read (but not experienced) reports of GrayKey or UFED being used to download someone's unlocked phone for offline analysis also. Your choices at the border are either: Unlock your phone and MAYBE get let in, or refuse which is best case a guaranteed entry refusal or worse case a 5 ban (for "non-cooperation" as inadmissibility reason).
The US (and UK) treat non-citizens terribly at the border; even with zero history or justification. It is even worse for non-white Europeans.
I don't think the threat of a fine or jail time is real. Even if the agents said that, that's not an actual legal penalty they can apply. They can deny entry to someone on a visa, but they can't deny entry to a citizen or legal resident. They can keep your device, though.
https://www.aclutx.org/en/news/can-border-agents-search-your... has a lot of good details.
> "Later I was taken back in, and the situation got even worse. I was pushed up against a wall and was strip-searched with a lot of force. They were incredibly harsh and used physical force the whole time," he claimed.
> "I felt completely devastated and broke down, and was close to crying several times. I was on the verge of panic.
That sounds worse than being denied entry.
> Fact Check: FALSE
> Mads Mikkelsen was not denied entry for any memes or political reasons, it was for his admitted drug use.
I looked up the article in Norwegian Reddit and someone posted a link to this person's Youtube channel where he shoots guns and (apparently, as I don't speak the language) has made comments about the President. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC68cjx7WTYtXGhC3rLD3N4A
This could be the long arms of Palantir scanning social media and identifying him as a person of interest.
But also interesting is the response that Norway's Ministry of Foreign Affairs put out (I checked, this was in response to his specific case):
> Entry regulations can change at short notice, and it is the traveller's responsibility to have valid documents and be familiar with the current entry regulations. It is the immigration authorities upon arrival who decide whether you are rejected at the border.
Which seems to hint that the subject arrived in the US without proper paperwork.
No, it's just a general statement. Because they can't comment on specific cases.
Also note, he would not have been allowed to board the plane in Norway if he didn't have the papers in order. They check that before going to that part of the international terminal.
Ok, so help him fill out the proper paper work. At which point does this justify strip searching and assaulting someone?
Norway regularly strip searches suspects, to mostly the same level of standard as other European countries and even the US.
The grounds they use to determine suspicion might be different, but in both countries a lot of discretion is given to the officers.
>"“Look, we both know why you are here,” the agent told me. He identified himself to me as Adam, though his colleagues referred to him as Officer Martinez. When I said that I didn’t, he looked surprised. “It’s because of what you wrote online about the protests at Columbia University,” he said."
[0] https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-lede/how-my-reporting-on-... ("How My Reporting on the Columbia Protests Led to My Deportation")
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44318330
What has changed recently is technology collapsing the world into a single blob of information, and that aspect gets worse every year.
The law works differently at the border, especially for non-citizens. Tourists don't have any legal right to get in. You may argue that the guards should be kinder and I would agree.
The historical examples you mention involve racism and slavery that were terrible but also the global standard at the time.
The Patriot Act is scary, but it doesn't seem much better elsewhere in the Anglosphere or in Europe. Say something impolitic loud enough and you'll get in trouble anywhere.
Here's hoping individual freedoms win in the end.
Depends on who "you" are.
There some some who are allowed to openly make tangible, if thinly veiled death threats to others without repercussions. Others can have their lives ruined over trivial things.
The "you"s who are not granted as much freedom of speech are aware of it and only express themselves among trusted people.
The type of speech being policed is different, but it's absolutely happening.
Horribly authoritarian, with wanton disregard for human rights, yes, but not "fascist".
Indeed, but those people are wrong. It would be like calling Jerry Falwell an Islamist extremist. Maybe they are bad for vaguely similar reasons but it is still inaccurate.
If you start telling me about how Syria has a serious problem with fundamentalist Baptists I am just going to assume you have no idea what you're talking about.
Really, you're just pissing into the wind.
Fascism is a specific ideology invented in Italy in the early 20th century; it does not just mean any authoritarian dictatorship.
To add another example to your list -- the TSA also has their own police (e.g. Federal Air Marshal Service), but they don't work the line screening your baggage.
If you are doing something illegal, they call the police, and the police arrest you.
Or is it “huh europe is weird they give their TSA agents guns instead of having the transport security and also airport police?”
Not sure I would ever consider the GDR to have been "fascist".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germany
TSA employees in 2000's USA scan your luggage and poke through it with technology. For any reason or no reason, they can open it up and poke through it by hand, or ask for assistance from nearby policemen with guns.
Is there any moral difference? If so, what is it?
(Also, nitpick: The East Germans were Communists, not fascists.)
We take into account motivation pretty often to evaluate morality not sure why you can't apply it here
TSA's purpose is prevent harm to other passengers (effectiveness is debatable but not the point), the east German border guards were there to keep control on what information the population could access and share
They are not the same thing even if the means look the same
There's no action (and by that I do mean action, not something abstract that involves multiple actions and choices) that won't be moral some times and immoral others. Intent is always to be accounted for. I'd be happy to have counterexamples if you have any in mind
Also pretty weird to see you infuse a sense of moral superiority to this website of all places
Is it? Lack of rights at the border isn't "fascism", it's the norm. I don't think any country gives you 4th amendment (or similar) rights at the border, even liberal democracies.
i drove to Surrey to a UPS Store, resealed and shipped the package and returned to the border. The US Immigration officer asked why I was only in Canada for 30 minutes, I explained, he laughed and sent me on my way.
Moral of the story is that every country can and will search your stuff and detain you and often turn you back for no meaningful reason.
There was probably some nationalism too. Stalin buried internatonalism quickly. They would inevitably bow to the Russian overlords. No shame about it. We were bowing to the USA in the West and we still are.
Anyway, was communism only a facade by the 70s and the 80s? In that case it was a fully fascist country. All of the East.
I'd like to hear from somebody who lived in those countries at that time.
You do you but that's gonna be a no for me.
I don't want to be in some Central American concentration camp when they decide that its time to turn on the ovens.
Like it or not, these countries are who you are being compared to.
France: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230329-french-woman-...
Spain: https://www.catalannews.com/society-science/item/belgian-cou...
Poland: https://www.intellinews.com/polish-writer-faces-prison-for-c...
United Kingdom: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/09/13/queen-elizab... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/16/activist-shock...
Italy: https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/18/italia...
Note in most of these cases people prosecuted faced graver consequences than not being let into the country, and were full citizens, not foreigners.
Belgium abolished similar law in 2023. Switzerland allows you to mock local politicians, but not foreign ones based in Switzerland (go figure). Portugal, Iceland, Denmark and Brazil still seem to have such codes, though I am not aware of any recent prosecutions (maybe they exist, I'm just lazy and don't want to make this into a whole M.Sc. thesis in political science).
In contrast, my worst border experiences have been in the U.S. and Canada (and I've traveled to over 30 countries).
In the US, I was nearly denied entry at SFO while on a valid TN visa simply because I didn't have a business card with me. The officer also referred to my wife as a "Chinese bitch" - within earshot (this happened during the Obama years). I had to let them handle my phone a bit to verify work emails, etc. But they didn't really search through it beyond that.
In Canada, I was sent to secondary inspection, had my bags searched, and was asked to show the photos on my phone. I was questioned for over an hour and they never told me the reason for it. It felt like they suspected me of smuggling drugs because the guy kept asking me what I had for breakfast... I'm Canadian btw and don't do drugs.
https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/20...
Where does it say that? Your source only says profiles need to be public
Moreover your description is slightly misleading because it only applies to "all applicants for F, M, and J nonimmigrant visas", which notably excludes tourism visas (B-2). The visas listed all seem to be academic related, presumably because the administration wants to crack down on woke ivy league students or whatever.
> "THE US EMBASSY in Dublin is tightening its visa requirements, saying that future applicants looking to visit the country will be required to divulge “all social media usernames or handles of every platform they have used from the last five years” on their visa application form."
https://www.thejournal.ie/us-visa-changes-6740830-Jun2025/
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44354298 (209 comments)
I got in. I was sent to some form of secondary screening, but they apparently couldn't find anybody who could speak English, so they just let me in.
Edit: I'm from a rich western country, in case it matters for anybody getting an understanding of who gets treated what way.
I guess it's a routine part of China's paranoia. They definitely do do weird things to check if tourists are causing trouble in some way i guess. I imagine that sort of interaction alone would scare off trouble makers and it's probably effective honestly.
I’m guessing you actually did something suspicious or illegal without realizing it.
A common and simple example of this is taking pictures where it’s technically forbidden — airports, military buildings (these aren’t always obvious to visitors), religious sites, etc.
Another example would be interacting with a person of interest. This could be a Chinese person that they are watching, or a foreigner that they are keeping tabs on (e.g., embassy staff that they suspect of being an agent).
As a tourist, you probably wouldn’t notice these things or even be aware that they are a red flag.
I of course wouldn't know if they tried to find my profiles.
But we don't talk about that for whatever reason.
Case in point this is only the 2nd story ever to come out about someone being detained / refused entry for content that was on their phone since Trump is president.
Trump himself probably wouldn't care (which is why he thinks these rules are fine - he knows what should be a jailable offense) but of course the bureaucracy needs to make rules that any of the thousands of border guards can follow. The outcome is a bullwhip effect and you get this (or worse).
The real problem is that the US system allows individuals with minimal training and virtually no oversight to wield unchecked power over travelers' lives.
The only verified fact is that he was denied entry.
One obvious reason to lie is that the real reason is embarrassing. Maybe he has criminal history, porn/nazi/fentanyl docs, what-have-you. Then when people ask why you was denied, you have to say something.
I'm absolutely not saying that he is lying! Only that we shouldn't blindly trust him.
It might not be 100% lies, it might be "based on a true story". The temptation to embellish/frame yourself as the faultless protagonist is instinctive and there are hundreds of examples of people doing it. Narrative shifts are super common in cases where facts are initially sparse and then more come to light... we don't have the whole context.
Something like "attempts to reach CBP for comment were unsuccessful." goes a long way. It's a tell that they don't. The story is too good not to print.
Do you expect the vile dog-shooting sociopath Kristi Noem to speak to this, given it's under her realm of extraordinary incompetence? Maybe she can play dressup to try to get some camera time.
For years we heard whines and cries about the politicization of government. Well the entire apparatus of the US federal government now wears a red hat and writes an essay declaring fealty to the king. It didn't take much for the country to collapse into a fallen idiocracy/husk of an autocracy, at least as a prelude for the utterly inevitable secessionist movement that is going to kick up to an 11.
Coincidence.
The fact that you have to get approved before traveling(that is fine), and then can be denied entry when you arrive for no logical reason is absurd. Visiting the US is simply not worth the risk and hassle.
Its crazy when you expect your privacy to be more respected in China.
This response from the Norwegian foreign office makes it seem like the man lacked proper documentation, which led to the search. However, it’s unclear to me whether the comment is specific to this case or just a general statement.
> "They threatened me with a minimum fine of $5,000 or five years in prison if I refused to provide the password to my phone."
this isn't real/legal/enforceable (as the law currently stands) is it? how does one protect ourselves against this turn of events upon entry when the immigration officer's claim fails the smell test?
No comments yet
Don't see how it wouldn't be legal as long as the target of the request isn't a citizen
Have been lied to too many times by the media with stories like these to believe them at first glance.
0. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly22xm8kx1o
No comments yet
I can think of several things that are more stupid, and for better or worse, border guards are dicks in a lot of countries.
With exception of might be Russia very few of such countries actually ever arrest tourists. Worst that can happen they'll send you out and ban for life.
Being a citizen of authoritorian country is another story...
Out of that population which could fill a decent-sized country, how many people have been treated so unfairly as the one in this article? How do those stats compare with other countries, and the inevitable abuses that occur in any vast bureaucracy?
It's possible to oppose the current US administration and still retain your rationality.
Nope, tourism is tanking. There are numerous stories about tourists being detained for little to no reason and eventually deported.
Travel warnings from various international orgs like Amnesty International and other governments have been mounting since 2019. It also doesn't help when the president attacks the country that makes up a large portion of tourist like Canada.
World Travel & Tourism Council says international visitor spending is going to drop by $12.5bn this year (down 22.5%).
Even this comment in HN could put me into problems if the guard considers it harmful.
If a funny pic of a politician can put you into prision, the probably some messages you write in a WhatsApp group with friends, discussing world news, could mean serious problems.
I planned last year to stop off in Hawaii and Seattle on the way from NZ to the UK this May, but in March this year I altered that and just did Vancouver instead as the stop-off.
I know several friends and colleages who have also done similar (even two didn't go to weddings of friends in the US).
Yeah, good luck downplaying the 12+ billion the US tourism industry is about to lose this year.
Zero, but that's not the same question. If something I think is unacceptable happens at a low rate, the fact that I think it's bad doesn't mean it's necessarily rational to change one's travel plans because of it, if the rate is low enough.
If I go to Iceland, there is some nonzero chance I'll be killed in a surprise volcanic eruption, but I wouldn't let that deter me from visiting Iceland.
The relatively high violent crime rate in US cities which was already present before the current administration is already a much more real reason not to visit the US than authoritarian border guards, although I'd argue even that would be a bit exaggerated.
As a tourist doing tourist things in the US, your risk of being involved in a violent crime is notably lower than an average US citizen, and your risk of being involved with a border guard is notably higher.
Why would you compare an unpredictable natural risk with one stemming from human behavior and government policy? This is like saying speeding limits are a bad idea because some people are killed by lightning.
By the way, I never said anything like "power tripping pro-MAGA border guards are okay because there are volcanoes in Iceland", so your lightning vs. speed limits analogy isn't relevant.
> Going to the USA as a tourist might be the most stupid action that one can make at this time. Unless you have a dying mother or father, there is absolutely no reason to visit this country. It reminds me of the tourists that used to go to North Korea for fun some years ago, it never was a good idea.
did not claim that one has a moral obligation to avoid the US, but rather tried to claim that it was stupid to do so from a purely rational perspective.
It’s the latter point I disagree with. People who avoid the US due to the possibility of personal harm by border guards are being irrational (unless perhaps they’re prominent pro-Palestinian activists).
I never said there’s no reason not visit the US. Avoiding it as a political protest against the current administration is a perfectly decent reason! But that’s not what was originally claimed.
The numbers are not a principle.
Pedantic, but if it is at entry rather than chasing people down afterwards, its probably CBP, not ICE. (CBP also does some chasing down afterward, too.)
Given the repeated reports of international carriers cutting US routes due to lack of demand this year, I wonder why you would assume that the numbers this year are the same as two years ago?
> It's possible to oppose the current US administration and still retain your rationality.
Waving off new abuses isn't rationality (it's also not opposing the current administration, but the opposite, carrying water for them.)
Ask people who have tried going to Canada from the US how welcoming border guards can be at their ports of entry. Say the wrong thing or try to cross with the wrong thing (in my friend's case, it was a set of tools used to repair electronics) and they will try to jam you up and deny entry.
I managed to save a few by arguing how ineffective as weapons they would be and then watch as two security staff try their best to pinch each other with wire strippers.
Canadian Border Guards then lectured me about responsible gun ownership, tore about my bags going "Since you don't keep track of your guns, let's find out if they are in your bags", went through my iPad movie content and finally was like "Ok, you are clear".
I've been back multiple times and since then, Scan Passport Check Computer STAMP PASSPORT Welcome to Canada.
However, when returning to the United States, even as a citizen (born, not naturalized), I have frequently faced questioning about my social graph, who specifically I have contacted, and things of that nature. I thought it was one dickhead guard in Vermont, but it keeps happening.
No qualms with your actual point, but immigration/customs is not the same thing as airport security, sorry but it's my pet peeve when people conflate them.
We haven't been there since this current administration took over, and have no plans on it until something changes.
Trumps comments regarding Canada, and the whole "51st state" rhetoric triggered the decision, but these stories absolutely play a part in it. I'm not about to put myself, or my family, in a position where someone might be detained for anywhere from days to weeks for no reason.
There's a big, beautiful world out there, and plenty of countries who are happy to have us and take our tourist dollars, all without me having to worry about getting detained for silly pictures on my phone. It's a pretty easy decision if you ask me.
Sure - America is a beautiful country, and people that I had met while on vacations and business trips were all very nice - I have driven thousands of miles (to/from Las Vegas from AB, Florida from ON) and never had a bad experience. But - unfortunately, the current political and cultural climate down there is just a little too "hot" - I hope it works out for the average person, but I don't have high hopes.
We should just lecture our audience to keep their head on straight and come travel.
[0] https://archive.is/QWmxO
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44084767
Why would you?
> Out of that population which could fill a decent-sized country, how many people have been treated so unfairly as the one in this article? How do those stats compare with other countries, and the inevitable abuses that occur in any vast bureaucracy?
Most people have an opinion about the US. They might have shared it on social media.
For comparison, the government of Turkey might care if you have insulted Erdoğan on social media (I don’t know; they might). But chances are you want to travel to Turkey while not having strong enough opinions to have flamed Erdoğan on social media. People care more about what they can see in Turkey; foreigners objectively spend more time on US political news than they spend thinking about the US national parks.
This is really why. Any evidence or suspicion of drug use or paraphenalia is a major offense. Even it they attempted to justify or explain it, its a major rejection criteria. Ive heard of several denials for suspicions of marijuana use, "DUDE WEED" memes and the like. They are really going hard on anything that looks like illicit substance use.
US politics is outpacing satire at an unprecedented ratio.
I have a new one for american applicants - how fat is JD Vance??
There’s no recourse if you’re uncertain. You can’t wave over a manager - you’re expected to process the huge queue with more piling in all day.
You work multiple long shifts per week. In a single shift you make thousands of decisions with huge impact to your life going forward - huge downsides for mistakes.
When you make 1000 decisions in a shift, even a 0.1% error rate is one wrong decision per shift!
And even if you are a nice person, you need to keep your job. When your biggest boss has an unsympathetic streak, you tip more into “my mistakes will be punished” mode.
But what is it with refusing water? Hydration is extremely important. I'm never voluntarily going near any situation which could result in me being refused water.
I would write a witty message about how it seems like a good idea to put your phone in the carry-on luggage, but given they now ask for social media handles I don't think I will
It could happen to anyone in a country where possessing lock picks is not a criminal act. For example, your sibling might get you some picks in credit card form factor one year for Christmas. You put them in your wallet and forget about them. You travel a bit within the USA and nobody cares. Then years later you travel to Japan and are whisked away to jail because of a thing you forgot about in your wallet. The Japanese don't understand why an innocent civilian would ever have such a thing; therefore you must be a nefarious criminal.
The US is not a friendly country, not even to allies.
Is this story real? I just checked, and nope, it's not April 1 yet.
Does anyone here have addition information?
this just in: agency infamous for fragile egos and abuse of power got their ego bruised and abused their power.
> Fact Check: FALSE
> Mads Mikkelsen was not denied entry for any memes or political reasons, it was for his admitted drug use.
If you are going to upset the empire with your on and offline behaviour, you better practice solid information hygene.
https://x.com/CBP/status/1937651325354795444
Would you be looked at with suspicion at this point?
Actually, comedy is specifically illegal now
(if ever.)
Also better to leave the laptop at home, if you don't want to wipe it.
Sure, if you get sent to secondary screening they may pick up your bag for you, but no.
Luggage pickup is after CBP. As far as I remember this is the case everywhere.
The best way to seem like you're not hiding something is to have something else to show.
> Mathias Rongved, a spokesperson at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has warned fellow Norwegians that it is their duty to be clued up on US regulations before entering the country. "Most trips to the US go without any particular problems," he said.
> "Entry regulations can change at short notice, and it is the traveller's responsibility to have valid documents and be familiar with the current entry regulations. It is the immigration authorities upon arrival who decide whether you are rejected at the border. Norwegian authorities cannot intervene in this decision.
Small world?
Why is this even on HN?
On a separate note, border agents being able to force you (anyone, including U.S. citizens) to give them access to your devices has been a problem for a long time and certainly should be illegal. When traveling internationally, you should either (1) leave your personal devices behind or (2) back up your personal devices to an encrypted drive (a tiny SD Card is ideal) and factory reset them. I know the EFF has been fighting that issue for a while and I’m hoping that at some point in the near future, border agents will be prohibited from forcing folks to give access to their devices.
There was the case a few months ago of a Canadian lady being detained and denied entry "for no reason", and then it turned out she wanted to work in the US while on a tourist visa, and also was attempting to evade border patrol by flying to Mexico and entering via the southern border instead of the northern border or at an airport, where she had previously been denied admittance.
Maybe you should stop closing your eyes and start accepting the new reality? This stuff has happened already multiple times. And Tricia McLaughlin will always invent a new lie to justify it
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/19/trump-musk-f...
The messages were described by the source in your article “reflect[ing] hatred toward Trump and can be described as terrorism”, and “hateful and conspiratorial messages”. Maybe they were? Who knows?
To share an anecdote, a person I knew in high school went around telling people that he got tasered for having a broken tail light on his car. Well, he did have a broken tail light, and he was tasered, but when the body cam footage came out, it tells the story of kid getting pulled over, being extremely combative with the initially polite officer, refusing to provide identification, refusing to exit the vehicle 10 times when the officer was attempting to lawfully arrest him, and then being tasered.
And as far as the original story, individual border agents should absolutely not be doing this to people because they have a meme on their phone, doubly so one where Vance shared a version of it himself. There is straight up no justification for this.
Dark days for the values the US professes to represent.
One of the underdiscussed aspects of an authoritarian regime is that it creates countless little tyrants that all feel empowered to exert whatever power they have in any way they see fit.
Some years later "Pull the guy with tattoos". Full search.
Year or two after that, New York, pulled from the queue, directed to stand in a clear box. "Do not move your feet from those markings". My young daughter had to stand and watch.
Another trip. My passport photo did not fit their criteria. "Why did you shave your head?" .. "Because it was hot" .. repeat that whole interaction several times.
I am so so happy that I never have to visit the USA again and it's solely because of the 'people' assigned as 'guards'.
Most border agents are brutal, regardless of the current administration. But things do seem to get worse when the Republicans/MAGA are in. I wouldn't even want to think about how they'll act if a big terrorist attack comes.
Drawing attention to yourself results in attention. Who knew.
No. Should have precisely zero baring on anything at all.
Reminder: Support of free speech requires support of the right to say things that you loathe by people you hate or you don’t support free speech.
See it?
I know you didn't mean it this way, but both sides believe this to be true depending on how you define "the right"
The thread in question is already 6 days old but you (both) broke the site rules so badly that this is not one to let pass.
We end up having to ban accounts that break the site guidelines like that, so please don't do it again.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
No it doesn't. You're putting arbitrary limits to suit your views. You can support free speech for American citizens and also support using a foreigner's speech to determine whether or not we allow them into the country. That's just smart border policy. We should be vetting who we allow into our country, and using their speech is one way to vet them.
Obviously not allowing someone in over a bald JD Vance meme is stupid. But the idea that we have to allow all foreigners the same level of free speech without it affecting their chances of getting into the country is also stupid.
The bar for when speech should be criminalized/penalized by the government should be very high.
For private entities I'm far more tolerate of censorship especially since it cuts both ways. Allowing or banning speech can directly impact a company's bottom line and should be regulated by customers choosing to interact with or avoid platforms.
Who is this "we" and what rules govern these "we"? What are the consequences for this "we" just up and violating the rules or throwing those rules out altogether to grift, stay in power and persecute those they hate?
Maybe someday the civilized world will realize democracy often ends in the case of two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
> We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words
and further that you're intending to use it as a burn on Trump and his government?
Regardless of what you think about them and Neo-Nazis/white supremacists, I think it's unfair because the policies of the current administration with regard to war, debt, environmentalism etc. evince a total disregard for the futures of children of any colour.
That is due to incompetence, not desire.
As someone who would be closer to that side than the opposite: this is terrible and unacceptable.
(It is not that hard to have actual principles)
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition. There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
https://plas.princeton.edu/news/2023/do-latin-america’s-top-...
Him and the people that backed him are the machine behind of all of this.
This is a perfect example of Bourdieu's idea of symbolic violence and the violence of the arbitrary.
The uncomfortable truth is, for many the thrill isn't in enforcing fair rules, or even unfair ones. The thrill is in the power to enforce arbitrary rules. The point isn't who gets punished, it's that someone can be, at a moment's notice, for no coherent reason. And the joy is in unpredictability, in knowing they can shift the rules under your feet and there's no one appeal to.
This is the logic sitting beneath every hand-wringing editorial and rage-bait thread about "cancel culture run amok." The goal is sovereignty, not consistency. It's about who gets to draw the lines and when they can redraw them. Arbitrary enforcement isn't a bug. It’s the feature.
The clever "gotcha" crowd falls flat when they imagine that, by exposing contradictions, they'll force a confession, a moment of logic, an admission, and surrender. But that moment never comes. When the point is arbitrariness, contradiction isn't a failure. It's the currency of power. Pointing it out only proves you're not the one with power.
What will the "PC culture" critics say? Probably what they’ve always said. Remember, it's not about the arguments. It's about who gets to arbitrate, who gets to punish, and who gets to laugh last.
It always has been.
This really is just what we have been hearing from the cultural right for a long time, masked as a kind both-sides/human-nature take. It sounds good, in that it gives something like general principle to subsume all the instances. But it just doesn't really make sense in the actually existing world. How could any given side even know they are the new hegemon, the new line-drawers, at any given moment. At what point are they rewarded with regard to the influence they wield? What does it even look like? Do you have examples? Sovereignty implies a concentration of something like power, but your very point here seems to decentralize sovereignty to the point of it being unrecognizable as such. Its like taking something very individual and trying to stretch it across everything in awkward way.
Just simply: how does this actually work? When does whatever side thats on top actually get to feel good, actually get to be the sovereign?
In my experience, the scope is the establishment of a status hierarchy.
We love to put ourselves in a privileged position. In most internet discussion, the status hierarchy extends throughout the duration of the encounter. In most Thanksgivings, the crazy uncle goes away at the end of the night, in marriages, it extends for the duration of the relationship. It's fundamentally tied to the social engagement.
Does it not feel at least a little juvenile to think like this, if you look at it critically, maybe from a little more the outside than you seem to be? These kind of pat armchair psychologies that answer in one breath the phenomena of culture, of human interaction feel just extremely schoolyard to me... but I guess ymmv.
At the very least: its unfalsifiable; one could easily go the other way and say "people love to belong to a group, and being able to police another group's language/jokes/etc is the best mechanism for reinforcing their belonging".
To picture you and your smug interlocutor as ever placed in some asymmetric structure where they are the king and you are the pauper belies the staying power of these controversies, the clear struggle they manifest. You make it sound so much like there never even is a battle, just spontaneous winners and losers.
I don't want to come off as harsh, but what you are arguing for is the logic of a loser, in the technical sense. Its asserting a projection you/others have of perceived intellectual enemies as a kind social theory for everything. It dooms you to fatalism you just dont need to have! Humans, for better or worse have a capacity for much more complicated motives. You do not need to "Mean Girls" the entire world!
I'm curious though, you seem to have not experienced this sort of internet domineering?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44369233
Or celebration
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44369218
The whole “political correctness is so bad that we need to elect the current regime” crew only ever really wanted to feel aligned with power and are more or less indifferent to what that power does so long as they are periodically made to feel reassured that they are on the right side of it.
I'm not a historian, but this reminds me a bit of the prelude to the French Revolution: a growing list of grievances against a ruling class by a population that feels abused, disenfranchised, and numerous.
Even if one expects to enjoy a sense of Schadenfreude were such a revolution/slaughter to occur, our staples of daily life (food, medicine, electricity, fuel) are distributed over such a geographically large network, that almost everyone on the country would suffer greatly.
I imagine.
The other thing to remember about the French Revolution was that nearly all the revolutionaries who came to power during it were dead by the end of it. The folks who are crying "We're in power now, suckas!" are being extremely stupid. Power doesn't last long at times like this.
The other thing that scares me is that the best place to be in all those historical times of crisis was an ocean away from the place where the crisis starts. But that doesn't work today; we have weapons with global reach that can level whole cities in 30 minutes. If the U.S. disintegrates nowhere on earth is safe.
This is a very Hollywood action film way of seeing the world. In the case of an American civil war, it's unlikely that it will be fought using nuclear weapons, and in that case, it's unlikely that they would use any on say, Chile, or Australia.
Europeans are screwed though.
If you live in Chile, the main danger is not that the U.S. drops a nuke on you. It's that Pakistan (freed from fear of international condemnation) drops a nuke in India, which then can no longer export rice to Saudi Arabia, where revolt breaks out, which cuts off the flow of oil, which makes Chile's economy grind to a halt.
India is also a nuclear state, so this is pretty unlikely unless the wheels really come off the deterrence strategy. North Korea attacking South Korea perhaps, but even that seems unlikely as it would greatly anger NK's closest ally of China.
So it’s not the Hollywood action movie view of the world. It’s just the standard 2005 version of Pax Americana make-believe.
Meanwhile Israel has attacked Iran and its US ally said “we want to do that too”.
History rhymes.
Anyway, even I, with my paltry education in history, can see the historical parallels. And here I am, versus an oligarchic class that had the opportunity for a world-class education, and surely knows at least as much history as I do. I wonder if they really believe that they've found the way to prevent the inevitable consequences this time, or if they just think that they'll have found some way out, possibly just having passed the buck to the next generation, before the consequences for them come to pass.
Democrats lost their conscience with Clinton.
The last republican president with a clear conscience was probably Bush Sr. He was also crucified for it (hence the single term). He foolishly let reason about running a government get in the way of party bluster and that ended his career.
Carter was the last democrat president with a conscience and he also was lambasted for it.
Unfortunately in the US, principles and conscience haven't resulted in party success in the last 50 years.
And the difference is really striking.
Once Republicans got power, they immediately forgot basically ALL their ideals: small government, States rights, adherence to law, budget discipline, etc.
Just because who he voted for got the power, does not mean Yarvin got the power.
"Me Yarvin, Me powerful now". Is not true. What power does he think he has.???
The real question is, what has to happen before these people 'learn', or 'understand' that they were duped. What would it take for them to really grasp how they were played? Like all those Germans that shrug, 'I didn't know'.
A better summary might be:
Yarvin tells Scott that today’s populist right is too weak to fear, while the real authoritarian danger comes from the prestige-driven institutions that already steer American life. His shift since 2008 isn’t a sell-out but a recognition that the fuel of mass democracy has run low and that the managerial regime’s ongoing failures are the greater evil.
I have a sibling that's deep into this, he would say "haha owned"
In this case, we have a report that someone was denied entry over an image of JD Vance.
From the same report, we have the facts that JD Vance approved of the meme the image was taken from, using it himself; and that the image provoked border control agents into interrogating the person about his ties to "right-wing extremism". Not usually something you'd expect from someone about whom the only thing you know is that he appears to be criticizing right-wing politicians.
It seems safe to conclude that politics weren't a concern. If you wanted to diagnose what happened, this looks more like the agents were looking to turn people away and seized on whatever they thought they could make work.
Also remember that JD Vance himself has plenty of air time laughing at these memes, and they aren't considered threatening like calling out Biden's cognitive decline with memes making fun of it.
The overall response to memes of this nature are very different on either side. One side wants to censor the entire internet and penalize people for daring to share something politically incorrect, while the other caught an outsider who may harbor threatening sentiments about our nation, with the intent to harm - although I sincerely don't think that's the case here.
Part of the irony here is that you'll more likely find a right-winger with more JD Vance memes on their phone than this guy.
The mass-censorship has a much deeper weight to it than inconveniencing 1 tourist, and I think it's a little surprising this needs to be explained.
I condemn cancel-culture full stop whether its the right-wing mcarthyism of the fifties or the leftist bullies of the last decade.
Do you?
It's not actually that unlikely for other people to possess the name.
Here's a footballer from Tromsø with that name: https://www.til.no/nyheter/mads-med-forste-proffkontrakt . He is 17 years old, so not the 21 year old mentioned here.
Here is another Mads Mikkelsen in Tromsø. https://fjellet.dk/
(Is Tromsø where they keep all the spare Mads Mikkelsens??)
Mads and Mikkelsen are both common Norwegian names (SSB has >4000 Mads and Mikkelsens individually), and unless his parents were big Refn enthusiasts I don't think they would have been aware of the actor...
[1] https://www.nordlys.no/mads-sin-drommereise-til-usa-spolert-...
https://archive.ph/h3Uf4 couldn't capture it well but you can see has his name is referenced as Mads Mikkelsen.