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 · 53m 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 · 35m 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 · 18m 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'.
DudeOpotomus · 26s ago
Is 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.
slg · 2m 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.
switchbak · 4m 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.
harry8 · 47m 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 · 6m 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.
MegaButts · 35m 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"
spiderice · 36m ago
> 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 · 24m 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 · 13m 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.
Bhilai · 20m 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.
titzer · 28m 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 · 23m 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.
hermanzegerman · 49m ago
What values does the US represent?
snickerdoodle12 · 7m ago
Hunting down brown people and shipping them off to concentration camps, based on what's been happening the past few months.
wk_end · 43m 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.
mensetmanusman · 4m 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.
jasonwatkinspdx · 47m ago
Supposedly freedom of speech for one. Hard to see that as being real today.
surgical_fire · 43m ago
Based on the current administration, I can think of 14 words that I will refuse to repeat here.
happytoexplain · 47m ago
Freedom seems like the obvious example here, unless I'm not catching your meaning.
ajuc · 29m ago
At this point mostly hypocrisy.
glenstein · 44m 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 · 34m 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 · 56m 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 · 50m ago
I fully expect to see this image on a shirt the next time I'm in line at security.
bjourne · 33m 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 · 18m 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)
yodsanklai · 1h ago
Don't worry, they'll find a way to justify it.
sjsdaiuasgdia · 1h 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 · 45m 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 · 39m ago
Yeah, it's a pretty great coincidence.
jrochkind1 · 39m ago
They're gone, they don't exist anymore. Turns out they were fine as long as it was fascism.
blueflow · 31m ago
Probably "Haha, our champion won. At least yours didn't."
kelseyfrog · 32m 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.
extr · 7m ago
AI slop
whateveracct · 47m ago
legalize comedy!
recursivedoubts · 56m ago
i think political correctness is bad and that this is bad (and that the meme is very funny) too
happytoexplain · 43m 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.
mellosouls · 54m ago
As did JD Vance who retweeted them himself.
throwawayq3423 · 49m ago
While he oversees a government that enforces punitive actions on speech. Guess which action is more important?
randallsquared · 41m ago
He oversees almost nothing. The VP has no constitutional powers except to tiebreak the senate and succeed the president.
tclancy · 34m ago
And yet coming out against this would carry significant weight.
dfxm12 · 33m ago
Nothing, because they don't care about jokes, political correctness or cancel culture. They care about fascism and grabbing more power for themselves.
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.
Analemma_ · 59m 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 · 55m 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 · 38m 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 · 28m 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 · 13m 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.
jasonwatkinspdx · 24m ago
There's some pretty clear parallels to the McCarthy era as well.
History rhymes.
JadeNB · 41m 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 · 40m 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 · 25m 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 · 3m 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 · 17m 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.
cpach · 19m ago
Interesting. Where did Yarvin reply?
FrustratedMonky · 36m 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'.
noobermin · 47m 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 · 21m ago
I've stopped taking these kinds of conservatives that I DO know personally seriously.
docmars · 10m 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 · 53m ago
The free speech crowd was never serious, they just want power and control over speech they don't like.
jbm · 41m 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 · 40m 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.
micromacrofoot · 29m 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"
mellosouls · 55m 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 · 52m 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 · 30m 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?
adamtaylor_13 · 42m 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 · 40m ago
I disagree that "most" of the people in the ideological camp the parent is alluding to are rational and logically consistent.
stego-tech · 37m ago
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.
perihelions · 1h ago
> "placed in a cell"
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 · 1h 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.
SV_BubbleTime · 44m ago
Everyone here knows it wasn’t because of a meme and that key information is missing.
Some people are just pretending really hard to not know that.
How some people let themselves be so easily manipulated it beyond me. I guess the answer like you prefacing your statement with “I don’t doubt it’s possible” is because people want to believe this.
sarchertech · 36m ago
When I say it’s possible, I don’t think that it’s the official CBP policy, but I have had enough interactions with power tripping cops to believe that it’s possible that the kid was disrespectful to the wrong guy. Customs agents have wide latitude in determining who can enter, and I could see a situation where an already angry agent saw the Vance thing, got even angrier and said you’re outta here.
solid_fuel · 34m ago
Don't make excuses for this abuse. The administration now in power in the US has been very clear - they oppose free speech and do not respect the constitution or Bill of Rights.
gruez · 59m ago
>"Tourist jailed without trial for possessing political cartoon"
Jail almost by definition means pretrial detention, so "jailed without trial" is a tautology.
anigbrowl · 17m 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).
> 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.
ymhr · 59m 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 · 50m 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".
dandanua · 36m 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.
Disposal8433 · 1h 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 · 40m 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".
> 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 · 21m 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.
EA-3167 · 58m 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.
jmorenoamor · 35m 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.
lol768 · 52m 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%).
pixelesque · 51m 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 · 39m 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.
jjkaczor · 11m 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 · 53m ago
What percentage of unnecessary and abusive jailings would you - as a rational person - consider acceptable?
umanwizard · 46m 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 · 3m 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.
anigbrowl · 12m 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.
dendrite9 · 31m 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 · 43m ago
Are we talking confirmed? Or Clickbait title?
ordinaryradical · 54m 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.
Tade0 · 51m 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 · 46m 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 · 25m 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 and such.
nemomarx · 26m 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 · 6m 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.
kube-system · 42m ago
Airport security might not, but this is border control, which has the authority to deny entry in every country.
umanwizard · 45m 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.
isaacremuant · 49m ago
Oh my sweet summer child.
stanmancan · 36m 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 · 23m 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 · 8m 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...
keybored · 34m ago
> 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.
Someone1234 · 51m 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 · 32m 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.
That is not true for non-citizens. Our law is swiss cheese regarding that.
Someone1234 · 6m ago
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.
root_axis · 33m ago
A more recent development is that you might also risk jail for weeks.
neilv · 43m 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.
That sounds worse than being denied entry.
legitster · 19m 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.
supertrope · 1h ago
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 · 1h 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 · 51m 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.
barbazoo · 40m 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.
kube-system · 37m 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 · 20m 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 · 7m 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.
freeone3000 · 29m ago
The only time that you’ve known of! Fly with locked luggage and see how often that lock stays intact.
kube-system · 28m ago
TSA removes locks with bolt cutters, they don't shoot them off.
freeone3000 · 27m 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 · 26m 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 · 21m ago
Does your need to be technically correct outweigh your need to understand an argument?
kube-system · 20m ago
What argument?
smsm42 · 29m 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?
umanwizard · 43m 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".
tartoran · 27m ago
Yeah, they were a democracy:) German Democratic Republic (GDR). Same with NK: Democratic People's Republic of Korea
umanwizard · 25m 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 · 14m 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 · 6m 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 · 11m 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.
Alupis · 39m ago
It's yet more evidence almost 0% of the population actually understands what "fascism" really is...
umanwizard · 27m 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 · 4m 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 · 17m 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 · 11m 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.
foobarian · 25m 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.
gruez · 48m 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 · 39m ago
And nearly all "rights" are rights of citizens, not visitors...
csense · 1h 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 · 51m 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 · 39m 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.
Veen · 20m 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 · 19m ago
I think we have exactly opposite definitions of "moral maturity".
Veen · 15m ago
You may be right, anal_reactor.
wang_li · 49m 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 · 1h 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 · 54m ago
For many, everything bad is "fascism", regardless of any similarity to the Mussolini rule of Italy 1922-1943.
pmontra · 37m 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 · 56m ago
In fact, East Germany was so anti-fascist they erected the “Anti-Fascist Barrier” around East Berlin.
keybored · 29m ago
I think East Germany was the opposite of fascism. At least compared to West Germany.
platevoltage · 9m 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.
tranchebald · 25m ago
The Stasi were communist. Maybe you want to say “authoritarian”?
perihelions · 10m 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."
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 · 34m 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?
JackFr · 17m 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.
llm_nerd · 14m 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.
Rebuff5007 · 1h ago
I vote for a campaign to make sure every single entrant has this meme on their phone.
MadnessASAP · 54m 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.
surgical_fire · 34m 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 · 59m ago
Are you volunteering to be one of the entrants, too?
CoastalCoder · 42m ago
It would be an interesting application of the Streisand effect.
jwkerr · 51m ago
Is this a reputable source? Is it a coincidence that the subject shares the name Mads Mikkelsen, or is this just bad reporting?
Does even China does that? Go through pics on your personal device at the border? Refuse entry over memes.
seanmcdirmid · 1h 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 · 43m ago
China is not worried about who enters. They're worried about who leaves
paxys · 1h ago
Have been to China multiple times and no, this does not happen.
gruez · 1h 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 · 51m 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 · 36m 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."
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.
iLoveOncall · 54m 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 · 1h ago
Visited PRC several times. They didn’t even ask much of a reason for my visit beyond “tourism”.
knorker · 1h 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 · 54m 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.
rfoo · 30m 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 · 1h ago
Did they check your social media accounts? Did these accounts contain any memes involving the current PRC administration?
knorker · 58m 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 · 24m 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.
pluc · 1h 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 · 7m 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).
vbezhenar · 50m ago
Almost any country can deny entry at will of border officer.
remram · 44m 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 · 39m ago
And yet in practice, this example is rare. "Can" is not "should" or "is immune from criticism for doing so".
jajuuka · 47m ago
You completely missed the point. The issue isn't denying entry, it's denying entry for this reason.
Workaccount2 · 41m 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.
nelsonfigueroa · 1h ago
Jeez...is the current administration that sensitive to criticism? I wonder if this comment will come back to haunt me some day.
theyinwhy · 54m 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 · 54m ago
Perhaps the most consistent common thread of despotic and tyrannical types is a complete absence of a sense of humor.
AdamN · 51m 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).
DocTomoe · 54m 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.
keerthiko · 53m 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 · 50m 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 · 3m ago
The question is about the threat of a $5000 fine/5 years of prison, not whether CBP can conduct inspections.
ethan_smith · 47m 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.
arlort · 49m 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 · 39m 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.
OsrsNeedsf2P · 13m 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
Havoc · 32m 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
bix6 · 1h ago
That’s not JD Vance it’s Marc Andreessen!
FeteCommuniste · 52m ago
Nah, the top of the head isn't pointy enough for it to be Andreessen.
throw4847285 · 53m ago
Head is not egg shaped enough.
discoutdynamite · 31m 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 · 7m ago
Funnily enough weed is more legal in the US than Norway.
United857 · 1h 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 · 56m ago
Why is it less credible than your inherently 0 sided guess?
Veen · 25m 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 · 15m ago
Except in reality judgment wasn't withheld, so your template doesn't fit.
nine_k · 55m 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 · 50m 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 · 29m 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.
tc313 · 51m 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 · 38m ago
Bullshit. They won't let you board a plane heading towards the US without a valid ESTA/Visum and Passport
chasd00 · 50m 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.
pstuart · 57m ago
It lines up with other reports for the same general issue, and also jibes with how the admin itself deals with criticism.
IAmBroom · 49m ago
"Evidence? When it supports our assumptions? Bah!"
perching_aix · 21m 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.
whirlwin · 24m ago
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.
virtualritz · 54m 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.
platevoltage · 5m ago
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?
Obviously if it is true this is ridiculous and condemnable but it would be nice to have more supporting evidence than this report.
SpaceL10n · 55m 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.
thehamkercat · 1h ago
land of the free
mvdtnz · 11m 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.
DocTomoe · 59m 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.
derelicta · 21m ago
So much from the Greatest Republic on Earth
keybored · 51m ago
The difference between the US and North Korea is that there are Westerners who think they can travel to the US without risking get harassed for apparently having mocked the administration of the country.
qoez · 59m ago
His name was "Mads Mikkelsen", like the actor? Either he gave a fake name or this story is made up.
strangecasts · 43m 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 · 49m 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 · 26m ago
“His name is John Smith? Big Fake warning bells!”
Mr_Eri_Atlov · 39m ago
"Comedy is legal again"
Actually, comedy is specifically illegal now
cs702 · 58m ago
Is that the only reason why entrance was denied?
Is this story real? I just checked, and nope, it's not April 1 yet.
Does anyone here have addition information?
affinepplan · 45m 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.
knorker · 1h ago
ICE? I would have expected this to be handled by CBP.
TheBlight · 59m ago
Did he say pwease?
slicktux · 1h ago
I’d prefer a meme of Wilfred The Dog JD Vance…the bald one is creepy!
jbverschoor · 54m ago
I hope liking every episode of puppetregime is allowed
spaceribs · 1h 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?
whalesalad · 57m ago
Based on the amount of vance memes in my photo reel, I would be sent to Guantanamo bay.
dyauspitr · 1h 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 · 1h ago
Your phone hasn't been a secure data-store across US national borders for 15+ years.
(if ever.)
axus · 1h 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 · 1h ago
That wouldn't matter, you get your checked luggage before border control, don't you?
knorker · 1h 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 · 49m ago
Every country I’ve ever travelled to, it’s: 1. Go through immigration, 2. Pick up your luggage, 3. Go through customs.
lifeinthevoid · 1h ago
Not really, in JFK terminal 4 at least, you get your luggage after passing through immigration.
treve · 1h 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 · 40m ago
Take out the sim and say the phone has no internet connection
lifeinthevoid · 1h ago
Sure, if you want to look extra suspicious.
krunck · 1h 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 · 46m ago
Then why was his ESTA approved?
delfinom · 13m ago
ESTA is a farce to justify a fee to funnel into the country's endless debt hole.
tartoran · 41m ago
Based on?
jldugger · 41m ago
> Mads Mikkelsen
Small world?
happytoexplain · 38m ago
Small country, small pool of names.
sys32768 · 33m 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?
_lateralus_ · 53m ago
lmao no shot this actually happened, or at least the meme was not the reason he was denied entry
lobo_tuerto · 50m ago
At least he was not detained and interrogated for it. Oh, wait...
IncreasePosts · 1h 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 · 44m 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
So how many times does something like this need to happen before you accept that it's happening?
IncreasePosts · 4m ago
Exactly once. But, I would need to know what actually happened, as opposed to what a person thinks or reports having happened.
thrownaway561 · 1h 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 · 47m 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 · 44m 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.
3hoss · 1h ago
Mads Mikkelsen? I'm very skeptical that this is real, and kind of disappointed that HN is being so credulous.
surgical_fire · 32m 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.
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??)
affinepplan · 44m ago
Some People In The World Sometimes Have The Same Name As Each Other
kizer · 1h ago
What the hell is happening to our country :(
pstuart · 55m ago
A fascist coup is in play and they are actively dismantling all the safeguards to prevent it.
platevoltage · 5m ago
and we have at least 3.5 years to go.
givemeethekeys · 1h 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 · 52m 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 · 29m ago
That is a very good point and a far more interesting one that this story is supposed to make. The matrix is here.
qoez · 1h 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 · 3m 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.
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'.
Drawing attention to yourself results in attention.
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.
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.
I know you didn't mean it this way, but both sides believe this to be true depending on how you define "the right"
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.
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-...
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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 have a sibling that's deep into this, he would say "haha owned"
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?
* 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.
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.
Some people are just pretending really hard to not know that.
How some people let themselves be so easily manipulated it beyond me. I guess the answer like you prefacing your statement with “I don’t doubt it’s possible” is because people want to believe this.
Jail almost by definition means pretrial detention, so "jailed without trial" is a tautology.
> 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.
0. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly22xm8kx1o
I can think of several things that are more stupid, and for better or worse, border guards are dicks in a lot of countries.
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.
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.
World Travel & Tourism Council says international visitor spending is going to drop by $12.5bn this year (down 22.5%).
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.
The numbers are not a principle.
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 and such.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What has changed recently is technology collapsing the world into a single blob of information, and that aspect gets worse every year.
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
If you are doing something illegal, they call the police, and the police arrest you.
Horribly authoritarian, with wanton disregard for human rights, yes, but not "fascist".
Fascism is a specific ideology invented in Italy in the early 20th century; it does not just mean any authoritarian dictatorship.
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.
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.
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
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.
>"“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
The only verified fact is that he was denied entry.
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.
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.
Coincidence.
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)
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.
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 of course wouldn't know if they tried to find my profiles.
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).
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.
> "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?
Don't see how it wouldn't be legal as long as the target of the request isn't a citizen
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
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.
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.
US politics is outpacing satire at an unprecedented ratio.
Would you be looked at with suspicion at this point?
The US is not a friendly country, not even to allies.
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.
Actually, comedy is specifically illegal now
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.
(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.
If you are going to upset the empire with your on and offline behaviour, you better practice solid information hygene.
Small world?
Why is this even on HN?
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...
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??)