US Border Officials Are Increasingly Denying Entry To Travelers Over Others' Social Media (techcrunch.com) 191
Travelers are increasingly being denied entry to the United States as border officials hold them accountable for messages, images and video on their devices sent by other people. From a report: It's a bizarre set of circumstances that has seen countless number of foreign nationals rejected from the U.S. after friends, family or even strangers send messages, images or videos over social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, and encrypted messaging apps like WhatsApp, which are then downloaded to the traveler's phone. The latest case saw a Palestinian national living in Lebanon and would-be Harvard freshman denied entry to the U.S. just before the start of the school year. Immigration officers at Boston Logan International Airport are said to have questioned Ismail Ajjawi, 17, for his religion and religious practices, he told the school newspaper The Harvard Crimson. The officers who searched his phone and computer reportedly took issue with his friends' social media activity.
Ajjawi's visa was canceled and he was summarily deported -- for someone else's views. The United States border is a bizarre space where U.S. law exists largely to benefit the immigration officials who decide whether or not to admit or deny entry to travelers, and few protect the travelers themselves. Both U.S. citizens and foreign nationals alike are subject to unwarranted searches and few rights to free speech, and many have limited access to legal counsel. That has given U.S. border officials a far wider surface area to deny entry to travelers -- sometimes for arbitrary reasons.
Ajjawi's visa was canceled and he was summarily deported -- for someone else's views. The United States border is a bizarre space where U.S. law exists largely to benefit the immigration officials who decide whether or not to admit or deny entry to travelers, and few protect the travelers themselves. Both U.S. citizens and foreign nationals alike are subject to unwarranted searches and few rights to free speech, and many have limited access to legal counsel. That has given U.S. border officials a far wider surface area to deny entry to travelers -- sometimes for arbitrary reasons.
related (Score:2)
Related article: US border agents assert ‘broad unconstitutional’ power to search citizens’ devices [techcrunch.com]. Thank God for the ACLU.
Unlikely to get the factual truth from Ajjawi (Score:5, Informative)
So first Ajjawi starts saying this was all about his religious views and beliefs. That stopped when asked about specific items then it was because multiple people he friended had posted stuff that was opposed to the United States but according to him he never replied to or anything. That they went and canceled his visa at that time indicates it was more than that; plenty of examples where people were denied entry and sent back then once they settled things they were allow back in on the original visa.
The Customs office is legally blocked from releasing more info but he can post screenshots of what was in his social media feeds.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, we can't deal with complications or nuance in the age of Twitter. All facts must fit in 280 characters or less so we can quickly choose a side and get back to that cute cat video.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Doesn't matter. What's fucked up is that they are looking at his social media at all.
Re: (Score:2)
perhaps, "Look at these cool detonators I built with Ajjawi's design! This will show them!"
or what have you.
It's hardly difficult to come up with examples of posts by other people that would be grounds to wait to let someone in.
Inhuman, graphic pictures (Score:5, Interesting)
TFA says there were "inhuman" and "graphic" pictures, and they were of sufficient quantity and offensiveness to concern the border agent. It seems a pretty specific reason and not necessarily arbitrary. The outcome doesn't seem based on religion or religious practices.
Without knowing what the pictures were, we can only speculate. The lack of avenue for appeal is a cause for concern, indeed. That should be remedied. Perhaps there was simply a handful of offensive pictures sent by a friend and the border agent overreacted.
However, if this guy is getting thousands of inhuman pictures of people being executed, or in the process of being tortured, or children being raped... well I can't really feel bad for this outcome. He has the ability to take action to delete or block the sender, or remove the pictures. Hate isn't a protected class.
Re:Inhuman, graphic pictures (Score:4, Insightful)
And what if it's just porn, and the border agent had strong feelings about porn?
What's the process? Where's the rule of law?
Re: (Score:2)
And what if it's just porn, and the border agent had strong feelings about porn?
Then the border agent probably won't have that job for long if he is just randomly kicking people out for things he doesn't like, which is not part of his job.
Re: (Score:2)
TFA says there were "inhuman" and "graphic" pictures...
Other posters are saying it's his word against no one's, because the TFA is prevented from commenting due to privacy rules. So which is it? Were there "inhuman" and "graphic" pictures, or are they not allowed to address his statements?
Re: (Score:2)
When a repeated joke from Family Guy gets you imprisoned and sent back from the US, I have absolutely no confidence in our border's agents judgment ability.
https://www.bbc.com/news/techn... [bbc.com]
Not that I expect border agents to know all the jokes from Family Guy, but I would expect them to at least use google to double-check people's stories.
Re: (Score:2)
Always wipe your electronics or use hidden OS's (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Surely that is going to look very suspicious?
Re: (Score:2)
If you're crossing a border, backup your portal electronics and wipe them, making sure they're clean.
Like, with a rag?
Re: (Score:2)
Not having any social media presence would seem strange
Then I guess I am strange.
Re: (Score:2)
The US always had that prerogative (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, that happens It's someone rarer though to actually get a visa granted and then be denied entry at the last minute because of something a relation said. The visa process is supposed to do the filtering out first.
US Law Exists To Benefit Enforcement Officials? (Score:2)
>> U.S. law exists largely to benefit the immigration officials who decide whether or not to admit or deny entry to travelers
Oh really? I would love to see one piece of evidence to support this moronic claim. The ambiguity of the circumstances in this story is so blatant, I don't even understand why it is a story at all.
I am forced to weigh the likelihood that the immigration officers A) greedily wrung their hands as they embraced their natural racist instincts to abuse their US-sanctioned Denial of E
How dare you (Score:2)
How dare you know someone who might have Bad Thoughts(tm) about the Glorious Land of the Free!
Reciprocation (Score:2)
This will just result in other countries searching Americansâ(TM) electronics when they enter the country.
Are you anti-EU and called them cucks? Germany can deny you entry. Going on your honeymoon in Cancun and said that Mexico was sending rapists for an invasion? Sorry, your wife can stay, but youâ(TM)re on the first flight back to the US on your own dime. And the next time you apply for a visa, you need to check the box that youâ(TM)ve been deported from a country.
Seems like the US Border P
Unconstitutional (Score:2)
Re:ugh (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. In my America, you can have any type of "views" you want. Thoughtcrime is not a real crime. You have to have actually done something to have your liberties restricted.
Re:ugh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ugh (Score:5, Interesting)
Peculiarly, I find this attitude belongs mostly to people who have never even owned a passport.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure it isn't the other way around? Most Americans have never had to fill out a visa application to visit another country. So they just assume that everyone can travel to everywhere without doing any paperwork.
Re: (Score:2)
Most Americans have never had to fill out a visa application because most live their whole life without leaving the country.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what he meant when he said "never even owned a passport."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I think the issue here comes down to an arbitrary rejection for someone who's already been accepted to a university and who already has a visa and now is turned away at the last minute because some petty border official didn't like something one of his friends posted.
Non sequitur (Score:2)
I've got a passport. I don't feel that I have a natural right to travel to another country, though I certainly enjoy the ability to do so.
There is no contradiction between possessing a passport and accepting that sovereign nations have a right to set standards of entry for their country.
If you don't agree, well, that liberal utopia Canada won't let in deadbeats, drunks, or crooks. I imagine if your online activities showed a nature that couldn't be squared with Canadian sensibilities, they might reject at t
Re:ugh (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the US can exclude anyone not a citizen from entering the country. They have that power. You also have the power to exclude anyone you want from your property. You have that power.
If either use that power to exclude people based on really bad reasons, that makes them an asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the US can exclude anyone not a citizen from entering the country. They have that power. You also have the power to exclude anyone you want from your property. You have that power. If either use that power to exclude people based on really bad reasons, that makes them an asshole.
I personally want to exclude pretty much everyone I don't know from my property, at least until I get to know them. Then I'll decide based on whether I like them. Are you suggesting that my reasons are bad and I'm an asshole? If not, just what does constitute the "bad reasons" that would make me an asshole?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes... You seem to me to be an asshole that doesn't want to meet new people, just on the off chance they might have a different opinion.
That's a pretty significant judgement made with limited data. Funny, I don't consider you to be an asshole even though you have labeled me so, although you are welcome to convince me otherwise if you like. I value different opinions and enjoy debates. I am, however, a fairly private person. I don't understand why you think my desire to limit visitors to my home to people whom I've gotten to know is so strange, but then you don't seem to understand why I might feel that way and feel it necessary to label
Re: (Score:2)
Jay treaty (along with the treaty that ended the War of 1812) says otherwise, and the American Constitution says,
Come to think of it, isn't the "Conventio
Re: (Score:3)
Right, except that the US has a stated goal of protecting rights of everyone on its soil, citizens or not. The rejection of someone for a free speech issue is essentially official hypocrisy. Sure, the US can legally do this and is allowed to reject anyone, but that does not mean that the US should do this or has the moral upperhand.
Re: (Score:2)
The US was built on immigration. Not just in the early times, but for example a massive amount of talent was imported in the 30s and 40s. Without that you probably wouldn't have got to the moon at all, let alone first, or come to have a lead in aerospace, for example.
Immigration has always enriched the US. And now you are turning people away because of shit posted on Facebook, the cess pit of the internet. Makes me wonder what would have happened to von Braun if Twitter had existed back then.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of that immigration occurred under rules that required domestic (already in the US) sponsorship of the immigrant - meaning someone else would 100% vouch for the person AND would guarantee to cover all expenses for the person coming (no public benefits allowed). Additionally it was done on pretty strict quotas, regions, and experience/training.
In your own nation, a student must prove proficiency with English, have funds to be self-sufficient [www.gov.uk], and meet several other criteria as well. And of course, if [smithstonewalters.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Of course I'm not okay with the UK immigration system, it's completely fucked up and inhumane.
Re: (Score:3)
Immigration is something the USA has full control over.
Is it though? The fact your highest officials are moaning about illegal immigrants like they are ten a penny and talk of invasions, build the wall etc makes it seem very much like the USA doesn't have control.
Re: ugh (Score:2)
Several thousand years of governments exercising the right to defend their borders should be sufficient.
Re: (Score:2)
Defend their borders against people who might disagree with government policies? Protecting the borders against smugglers or military incursions is one thing, but applying litmus tests on purity of thought is not what borders are about.
Re: (Score:3)
What has your comment got to do with the topic?
The people being banned from entering are being because of OTHER PEOPLES comments, not their own...
Did you even read the article?
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit. If a group of baby-eating cannibals tried to push their way into the country and spread their latest puppy flambe recipe, you'd freak.
Yes, this is exactly the same as your mate saying the us sucks. Exactly the same...
Re: (Score:2)
that said....and I don't disagree...the experience of return to the usa as a citizen varies wildly depending on which port of entry you happen to use. I will say that Newark just plain sucks. USA customs employees there hardly even speak english...and they treat everyone badly (at least it isn't directed at a single group i suppose). But if you come back through another port like through canada or mexico, you are treated with respect and usually a half smile even.
Re: (Score:2)
You ain't wrong. Just for general TSA hassle and harassment, not even having to do with border crossing, LAX is probably the shittiest airport, in my experience. Curious how these distinctions come up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well it helps that you're a citizen. I have a third-country passport and need a visa for both the US and Canada. Going into the US it's always been just a few questions at most, like where you'll be staying and for how long. Going into Canada from a small border crossing in Washington, I think near Danville, the Canadian agent kept me for like half an hour asking about everything including, yes, why I'm crossing there and not near Vancouver like normal people.
On the way back the American agent barely looked
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What if they let ME in, and then *I* detonated a suicide vest? I guess if I had committed some thoughtcrimes, that could all have been prevented.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously, a suicide vest? That is so unamerican. The prescribed manner is assault weapons but if these are hard to obtain any gun will do. And if you join the cops, the military or the privatized military you can get paid for your hobby too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's flip it (Score:2)
Re: ugh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yay anarchy!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I do, in at least 26 other countries. Even have the right to work there. Who is brain dead now?
Re: (Score:2)
In these cases of a student showing up to attend a US university, the background checks have been done and the visa has already been granted. The US has already said "you can book your plane ticket, send money to your school, move out of your parents' house, and come in in!" Then some schmuck at the border decides that because his third cousin twice removed who posted that the US is imperialistic he is now untrustworthy.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you can. And when they come over, we can talk about all the white American citizens who have murdered hundreds if not thousands of people in this country in acts of domestic terrorism over recent years. Kiss that photo of Timothy McVeigh you keep on your nightstand tonight for me, mkay?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Huh... I think the record since 1900 says you're wrong. You have a MUCH greater chance of being killed by someone who wants to destroy America, and hates it - than you do from someone who claims to love it. Unless you want to ignore the 2,977 killed on September 11, 2001?
At least a 9/11s load of people are murdered by fellow citizens in this country each and every quarter. That's four 9/11's a year every year.
There has been at least **71** 9/11's worth of murders since 9/11/2001 and hundreds more before that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't just assume restricting access to guns in the U.S. saves lives. It doesn't fit the facts.
Firearm ownership rates are up over the last few decades, yet the murder rate is down over the same time period [guncite.com].
Areas with higher firearm ownership (rural) have significantly lower levels of deaths than areas with a lower firearm ownership rate (cities). Same with comparing more restrictions to less firearms restrictions. It's the parts of the countries with more restrictions on access to guns which have more
Re: (Score:2)
Homicide rate is far lower in small communities with low gun ownership as well.
Also, US gun/citizen is well over 1.0, which is several times higher than the other other highly armed countries. It's unlikely a further increase will result in more homicides even if in general reducing the number of guns would reduce homicides, as it has in many countries.
It's been observed many times and is undoubtedly true that if you restrict access to the best tools for murder that there will in general be less murder.
Re: (Score:3)
Can I give the next person that dies at the hands of someone let into this country with known postings of hate for it's citizens your name and address?
Got the fucking balls to meet this family member face to face?
What if someone already in the country has known postings of hate for its citizens? Should their citizenship be revoked? Should they be jailed forever?
If no and someone dies at the hands of such a person... "Got the fucking balls to meet this family member face to face"?
What if someone already in this country "looks like a serial killer". Should they be jailed forever? If no and it turns out they actually are and someone dies at the hand of such a person... "Got the fucking balls to meet this family me
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
In my house, I can be as self deprecating as I want. It's my house. My family can be insulting to me and I will put up with it because they are my family and my house is their home. A guest in my house will be kicked out if they insult me because they are a disrespectful guest not entitled to my house, my family, or me.
My family gets more than a guest. A guest enters my home at my discretion.
I can be a totalitarian ass hole to guests because they are not my family and my house is not their home.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but when the "house" is the United States of America, you are not "the man of the house." I mean, you ARE -- but so am I. So you don't get exclusive rights to say who the United States of America can be an asshole to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not true, the president has relatively little power overall, and is as bound by laws as eveyrone else is. The president only has leeway in a few things in the constitutution and then whatever congress has granted. And congress did indeed grant broad powers to the executive in regard to immigration, but not unlimited powers. The courts did find that the president did not have the power to deny entry to the US from seven predominantly Muslim countries because he didn't provide a good enough reason.
Re: (Score:2)
If what you're doing in your house affects your neighbors negatively, don't be surprised if they have some critical opinions of you. It's one thing if they say they want to burn your house down, but if they knock on your door to tell you you're playing your music too loud, that's not an excuse to be a "totalitarian asshole" to them.
Similarly, merely having critical views about the USA should not be grounds for denial of entry. But having views that condone or encourage violence against the USA probably shou
Re: (Score:2)
>affects your neighbors negatively, don't be surprised if they have some critical opinions of you.
Sure.
> you're playing your music too loud, that's not an excuse to be a "totalitarian asshole" to them.
If it's 2pm for a holiday playing my anthem. Sure it is.
>merely having critical views about the USA should not be grounds for denial of entry.
I might largely agree but at the same time why would any one critical of the US want to come to the US? Could be interpreted as acquiescing to their ideas of th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>people wonder why they are called fascists or authoritarians.
A country exercising sovereignty on its border is not fascist or authoritarian.
> It is almost like people are responding to things they do and say.
It's almost like words like 'fascist' or 'nazi' are thrown around for any reason lose all meaning.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know where you got your definition but I'll play.
> a type of one-party dictatorship.
Nope.
>against democracy.
Nope. Unless your a democrat using super delegates to decide who is the nomination
>puts nation and often race above the individual
Nope. Unless your a democrat pushing affirmative action and open borders.
>stands for a centralized government
Nope. Unless you're a democrat pushing for the government to have more power.
> headed by a dictator.
Nope.
>ts tend to be racist
Nope. Unless yo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you can be a totalitarian asshole in hour own house. Does that mean you should be one? You can kick someone out for mentioning that your toilet isn't working, but that doesn't mean you should do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bit of a dilemma. We don't want to let people in who have strong anti-US views.
Why? Is it against some kind of law to have anti-US views?
But what do you do about someone who hasn't said such things, but their friends have?
I find it hard to summon any outrage over it.
This makes sense. If the state is allowed to judge people based on constitutionally protected expression is it really significantly more egregious to judge them based on what their friends think? When you clear the first hurdle there is no law. It's just people with badges doing what they feel like doing... in such an environment judgment by association seems to be a predictable outcrop of the original breakdown of governance.
Re: (Score:2)
>Why? Is it against some kind of law to have anti-US views?
No. The government is given latitude on who can cross the borders via the law. But why should we let them in?
> If the state is allowed to judge people based on constitutionally protected expression
They are not citizens and not granted the same constitutional protections. Or are you saying that any foreign national in the US can own a gun? Even if they have terrorist sympathies (protected expression and all ... err 'anti-US views').
>predicta
Re: (Score:2)
No. The government is given latitude on who can cross the borders via the law
What law specifically are you referring to? The citation does not refer to a legal justification for denying entry based upon alarming cell phone content. The citation is a reference to the following text of the immigration and nationality act:
"who is not in possession of a valid unexpired immigrant visa, reentry permit, border crossing identification card, or other valid entry document required by this chapter, and a valid unexpired passport, or other suitable travel document, or document of identity and
Re: (Score:2)
Would you let someone into your house who was stalking you? Who had publicly stated they hate you, and want to harm you? Why would you want to do that?
If you'd ever been in that situation, you'd know the right answer is to get a restraining order.
Re: ugh (Score:2)
So an idiot wearing a âoeMake America Great Againâ har can be barred because 1. We donâ(TM)t want anyone here who says we arenâ(TM)t perfect, and 2. We donâ(TM)t want the acerage IQ to reduce.
You realize by being selective on politics a government can engineer it so that only their supporters come in. What will you say when democrats get control and only allow socialist supports in?
Re: (Score:2)
We don't want to let people in who have strong anti-US views.
Stolen horse, barn door. We have whole cities full of views like that (San Francisco) and even a state full of that viewpoint (Hawai'i). Such views are more protected by our Constitution than the analogous opinions would be proteted in Europe, let alone Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Re: (Score:2)
Beware though, a lot of people like to claim that any sort of critcism of the US is anti-US hate speech. You CAN criticize the president without being a traitor, disloyal, or a hater of the Unites States; in fact it is the duty of all citizens to hold their leaders accountable. You CAN criticize the government for its overseas policies without being anti-US. We have elected legislators that criticize what the US government is doing, and only an utter moron would call them haters of the US.
Granted, many cou
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bit of a dilemma.
No, it really isn't. See the first amendment to the US Constitution. The US does not have a history of punishing "thought crime". But now that you have a president who is cosying up to the Russians, it seems the Bill of Rights has gone out the window.
Re: (Score:2)
There have been plenty of attacks *on* Muslims, by Americans, since Trump's Muslim ban. Both inside and outside our borders. That's better I guess? Since you aren't one?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
As you are both stupid and lazy I'll help you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Who is "hating" the US? You can criticize the government without hating it. You can state a preference for the opposition political parties without being a hater. Political speech is not hate speech. Saying that the US is screwed up is not hate speech.
If telling the US to improve itself is hate speech, then saying "Make America Great Again" is also hate speech by implying that America is not yet perfect...