this is worth reading then https://medium.com/@thegrugq/stop-fabricating-travel-securit...

EDIT (what to do): https://twitter.com/thegrugq/status/829855684636274688

That's kind of a worthless article. What's the solution, then? Just accept that all of your private data will be copied by the government? Don't travel at all?

Edit: Also, the same guy explicitly encourages lying about your social media accounts two posts prior to that one. Which is it, chief?

I don't think it's worthless to point out that a number of strategies are bad, and likely counterproductive. It might just be the case that there are no good foolproof methods for getting through the US border without any negative effects on your privacy or convenience.

The only real solution is to change government policy.

The evidence seems at odds with this guy's suggestions. We've heard lots of stories about people being stopped and required to hand over devices. I'm not aware of any stories of people being stopped simply for not having devices.

>Carrying no devices

Is this article seriously suggesting i can't travel without a device or can't wipe before i go, because these CBP guys are so easily triggered?

yes, both could be triggers

I understand the basic scope of the author's intent, stop advertising fool-proof solutions to avoid vetting checked by the CBP, but their praxis comments require a bit more sourcing and evidence for some of the claims, and quite frankly, most just sound like scaremongering.

The CBP actions and incidents as described by first hand accounts do not seem to define an institutional directive guiding the decisions as to who warrants further investigation, and more importantly, who warrants having their entry denied. From the article earlier today on Henry Rousso's experience, the Immigration Lawyer that helped secure Dr. Rousso's release suggested that agents themselves are looking for reasons to deny entry rather than reasons to admit. [1]

This isn't to excuse their behavior - it's deplorable, but to suggest there is a rhyme or reason to what's happening isn't really sensible. The issues is emboldened agents abusing power, not an institutional directive.

Quite honestly, travelers worried about drawing the ire of the CBP don't have many reassurances right now since you're not looking for what makes you suspicious or unsuspicious to the CBP, you're trying to guess what makes you suspicious or not suspicious to the individual agent you're reaching.

The agents' attitude absolutely needs to be checked and unfortunately this likely means there will be more of these cases until something institutional is sent down to curb the behavior.

[1] https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/26/us/french-historian-de...

The agents must be looking for reasons to deny entry rather than reasons to admit, since that's what the law (e.g. [1]) has always required them to do.

If you come in with a tourist visa, the explicit legal presumption (opposite to presumption of innocence in criminal law) is that you're not fulfilling the conditions of the visa and actually intend to immigrate or work in USA, and the job given to the immigration officer is to interview you until (and if!) they become convinced that you really do meet the conditions - and if they aren't sure one way or another, then it's their duty to deny entry. It's not a new change coming in with Trump, it's that how USA immigration (sadly) works by design.

[1] from https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0... -

(b) Every alien 10/ (other than a nonimmigrant described in subparagraph (L) or (V) of section 101(a)(15), and other than a nonimmigrant described in any provision of section 101(a)(15)(H)(i) except subclause (b1) of such section) shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer, at the time of application for a visa, and the immigration officers, at the time of application for admission, that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15) .

I think there is a slight misunderstanding in the turn of phrase used by the lawyer and repeated by me. I understand what you're referring to, but the idea of "looking for a reason to deny" is more meant they're going beyond their stated and written duty and creating reasons to deny entry after establishing they have a valid permit for entry with no other reason. It's not that they are just doing their job, it seems some agents are inventing problems or refusing to accept some conditions as OK once properly vetted. It's the idea behind looking for a problem, trying to provoke an issue

I will be carrying devices, but not personal ones. So without any personal data. If that is enough to send me back, sure then I'll go back. I won't lie. I will simply say that I don't want my devices searched if asked about it. Honestly, I don't think I would give up my password even for devices that are not my personal ones.

Is that really a bad plan?

The officer at the border has discretionary power to send you back. If they are unhappy with what is on your device - or they dislike you - they can bounce you.

That guy again. It's like NSA got a blog.

So I should do nothing about it? I don't think so.

FYI that article has a number of errors. Most notably that anyone can any person can detect lying better than someone else. It is simply not true. I do believe that they are trained to give oddly-phased questions, which is a technique.

Please don't encourage ill treatment of US citizens overseas. Americans who travel outside her borders are not the people making these decisions, tend to be much more worldly than the average citizen, and are the first to be horrified at these developments.

If you want to make the US change, speak the language we speak: lawsuits. Sue, sue, sue. Call your embassy and demand that they pressure the White House to retract this stupid policy.

This is, for better or worse, a populist decision.

I'd be all in favor of other countries holding up any Americans coming through on a tourist visa. Maybe if enough of their friends gripe about the way they're being treated overseas, Trump country will think "Oh, it's really not a very nice way to treat people." (To say nothing of ineffective)

I think there is very little overlap between international travelers and Trump supporters.

I think that's a pompous assumption to make as it boils down to "If people travelled more, they wouldn't have voted for Trump." Which (even setting aside the economic assumption that everyone can jet off to Europe or Asia) is a pretty dismissive way to look at why people voted for Trump.

My takeaways were instead the following. (1) If one disagrees with the way the country is heading, one first has to understand the needs that drove people to Trump, and support people who fulfill those needs in a more positive way (rather than dismissing them). (2) Stop considering oneself absolved of blame if one didn't vote for Trump. One still participated in the environment that led to a Trump elector college victory, and is thus complicit.

Every day, not just election day.

Well that's a silly statement.

They might not be making the decisions but they are the only ones who can affect them. How can foreigners demand that the US government changes its policy?

What power do you think the average citizen of the United States has to affect its government? A phone call to their senator (most likely ignored, best case you end up a tally in the nay yay spreadsheet, and either way it doesn't matter because they are going to vote the party line) and a vote on Election Day (hah!).

> Americans who travel outside her borders are not the people making these decisions, tend to be much more worldly than the average citizen, and are the first to be horrified at these developments.

They also most likely wield dis-proportionally large influence to get this nonsense stopped.

Why? What would give you that idea? "People who travel internationally" is not, to my knowledge, a privileged political class in the US.

People who travel internationally tend to be wealthier and better educated than those that never leave their country.

They don't need to be a privileged political class in order to wield more influence since influence tends to be loosely correlated with wealth. See also: Trumps billionaire cabinet.

That sounds a bit extreme. The US is bad, but it's not the worst place I have ever been. Also don't drag the rest of us in with you, it's selfish and petty that you would have people lose their jobs over what you perceive as a embarrassment from reading things on the internet.

I'd rather visit Panama, Colombia, Serbia or Romania at this point than the USA.

And that's based on personal experience, not based on things read on the internet.

All of which I am sure are lovely countries. I have only been to Romania out of that list and I loved my time there. You are free to visit and prefer wherever you want. I prefer spending my time in Hong Kong or Singapore if given the option. I just view the complete halting of tourist markets to a to a country for a political statement because less than 1% have problems with local authorities with what probably amounts to them misspeaking about the nature of their trip (work vs tourist visa debate) and the TSA being the right mixture of incompetent and evil is a bit hyperbolic.

I agree. I work in the UK, and used to go to SFO twice a year. I am now telling my manager that I am not willing to take the risk to be arbitrarily detained for no reason, even if it's only a 1% chance (which sounds about the current level). Send me to any country, but only where the rule of law applies.

But this is the rule of law, unfortunately. While we (Americans, in this case) are trying to change the laws, the problem, or rather a problem, is that people who enforce the law at the border have too much power (and too much leniency for exercising too much power). This problem is not peculiar to the US.

"Send me to any country, but only where the rule of law applies"

which is?..

"Do not come to the US for any reason."

Many people are obliged to do so as part of their job.

Personally I have entered about 10 times with zero issues, I'll probably need to go soon and I'm kind of curious if the general attitude is changing.

Literally almost nothing has changed in the real world at this point. Maybe it will change, but for 99.9% of people the US is still acting like the US always has when it comes to day to day affairs and I say this as someone who had family get hit by Trumps immigration ban.

Yes, that's the right attitude. 99.9% of the people are not affected so it doesn't matter.

/s

Really, don't we ever learn lessons from history?

I'm quite fond of Tabarrok's quote about bets being a tax on bullshit.

So, what are we supposed to learn from things that don't affect 99.9% of people? What exactly are you hinting at? If you've learned something from history that others haven't and that is germane to the situation, are you willing to bet money on it?

I'm sure someone will take the other side of the bet, that way we don't have to deal with the "kids these days" type of rhetoric that doesn't really prove anything about anything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to understand. Some guy was unfairly treated at an airport. A common occurrence in the US, so it seems. Now that story gets blown out of proportions (there are many similar cases no one ever reports here), and suddenly we're on a the verge of a genocide. Let's assume that's true. What prediction would you make and how much would you bet on it that would confirm this hypothesis is right? How likely is it that it's just some TSA agent ego-tripping?

> How likely is it that it's just some TSA agent ego-tripping?

Very likely. And that's exactly the point.

Ego tripping and law enforcement should be kept apart at every opportunity.

For you this got blown out of proportion, because it does not affect you. But if it ever will affect you then I hope you will remember this thread and what it feels like when you're part of the 0.1% and nobody gives a fuck.

And everybody is part of some 0.1%, even if you haven't figured it out yet.

I'm Iranian American, you are being hysterical. This story is blown out of proportion and you are treating it like we are on the verge of Hitler rising up from the grave and donning the red white and blue.

Let's see:

- many tens of billions extra will be spent on armaments (America first, sure)

- nationalism is at a roughly 70 year high in the Western world

- as is xenophobia

- in many countries politicians of extremely dubious character are waiting in the wings with elections around the corner

You're treating it like it is business as usual. And I can assure you that it is not. I haven't seen this kind of alignment as long as I've been alive.

Now let's hope things will get better before they get worse.

I don't see what you being an Iranian American has anything to do with it though, for all I care you could be born in Brooklyn or Paris, it would not make any difference to me.

And if you feel this story is blown out of proportion then I hope that your family is with you and will not attempt to join you anywhere in the next couple of years, noting how Iran was part of the not-Muslim ban.

- The US is currently bombing 7 countries. Tensions are heating up in eastern Europe due to Russian aggression and NATO expansion in the region. This is happening no matter what just because the American empire is losing power and regional powers are attempting to flex more muscle. - I honestly don't find nationalism to be an inherit evil. Nationalism is a tool in the political playbook just like any other. I am not saying that going from 0 to fascist is ok, but we have been sitting at about a 4 for a while now and it probably just got cranked up to a 6. - The Xenophobia has always been there. Growing up after 9/11 my family stuck american flags on our cars as a precaution against vandalism. I think what people are seeing is the lower 'deplorable' classes finally got equal access to mass communication that many of us have enjoyed for years and we are seeing those old tensions getting pushed to the front of our political dialog. Before now people in well to do areas could just ignore it. Also xenophobia isn't a unilateral thing, race relations in the US are terrible and small groups of every racial demographic make life hard for non racists in other demographics. I also think a lot of this, at least on the internet, has to do with push back against what is viewed as an overbearing cultural force from the political left. It's now edgy to be an ironic neo-nazi on the internet and if you tweet nazi memes at a journalist you might end up on the front of the NYT. - I'm fearful of Wilders more than anyone else up and coming on the world stage right now. Trump I think is overblown and I don't know much about Le Pen besides some of the questionable history of her party and her role in 'reforming' it.

Me being an Iranian american is relevant to this because we are one of the number one groups of people targeted in times like this in the US. Iran is a hostile geopolitical power to the US domination of middle eastern affairs. We are frequently singled out for likely 'terrorist' activities because of the mix of Islam, skin color and the past few administrations have been hinting that they are edging for conflict with Iran. If anyone is going to get rounded up into interment camps in the US it will probably be people like me.

Agreed on Wilders.

As for the rest, I see one silver lining around almost all of the clouds which is that Trump & Company are absolutely incompetent. That's the only thing that's keeping things afloat right now, if they get their act together all bets are off.

Practically speaking, some first world countries might be able to hold US citizens in disdain. But for much of the third world the US tourists are big source of revenue and non tourists are usually important people on government or private business. So most nations can't afford to treat US citizens badly whether they want or not.

Maybe I don't speak for everyone, but I'd be more likely to go on holiday somewhere if I can be assured there are no US tourists there.

As an American, I'd also be more likely to vacation somewhere if I knew it had no rude American tourists there.

I could say the same of British, Russian, German, and Chinese tourists.

This is why, even when vacationing inside the US, I avoid the tourist traps. They're full of jackasses, regardless of individual nationality. But it should also be noted that those same countries that routinely make the list of the world's worst tourists also top the lists of the worlds best tourists. When a tourist is well behaved, you barely notice them, but when they act up, you remember it.

Interesting idea, but probably the wrong decision. In my own life, I've noticed that this approach just doesn't work for me. Rudeness or cheating in response to rudeness and cheating doesn't win. The thing about the shameless (as James Bond mused about a cheater at tennis) is that they are curiously invulnerable. You aren't curiously invulnerable, so you'll lose at this sort of pissing contest.

A civil, coherent, deliberate, and assertive response is a very good idea, though. Just don't give up on your values.

More ill will and poor behavior doesn't result in things getting better.

Neither does lying down and taking it, oddly enough.

Lying down and taking it is a negative opposite action to take(which isn't suggested), of which there are a tremendous amount of alternatives that have better outcomes.