6 ms·

> "Real" spies and terrorists and whatever can obviously afford to setup enough cover. > It's bizarre how people don't think ahead to their border crossing and

> "Real" spies and terrorists and whatever can obviously afford to setup enough cover. > It's bizarre how people don't think ahead to their border crossing and are willing to admit they are going to live with their SO, or work as a nanny -- while under a tourism visa. So we're not catching "real" spies and terrorists; we're catching nannies trying to get paid under the table; do you think maybe we've got bigger fish to fry? This is a bad precedent, and what are we gaining? Nothing.

67726e 10y ago
Rule of Law.
- voxic11 10y ago
  Sounds more like rule by law.
  - 67726e 10y ago
    Sounds like no nation wants undocumented labor because it is very problematic.
- andrewflnr 10y ago
  It's so obvious as to hardly bear mentioning, but you can use this to excuse any violation of rights if you want. Sometimes "rule of law" just isn't worth it.
  - 67726e 10y ago
    Sure, but you've offered no argument regarding this particular situation.
crpatino 10y ago
The people that voted for Trump get to gain a bunch of thankless, low-pay jobs that will no longer be allocated to illegal aliens. There might be bigger fishes to fry, but given that they never get invited when salmon is on the menu, they are happy to see the sardine cans comming in. And if they cannot or will not take the nanny jobs for themselves, at least they get to mock the uppity mothers that voted for Hillary and now are forced to dump their careers to take care of their own children.
MichaelGG 10y ago
You're gaining a more efficient CBP, enforcing visa rules and avoiding overstays like they do now, just with higher accuracy. Now if you want to argue that visa classes are silly and the US should just let anyone come in for whatever, fine, but that's a totally different argument. And yes, it's possible that this isn't worth the gains to CBP. But the US is pretty powerful and can force quite a bit of crap on people without getting too hurt. If it stops, it'll most likely be from efforts from e.g. Facebook lobbying against it. Business travelers have little choice. A lot of migrants have no choice (the benefits of US residency far outweigh the inconvenience for most people) -- we can test this out by looking at how many Mexicans or other Latam folks stay in the US vs, say, Canada over the next few years (confounding that is Canada removing visa requirements for Mexicans). Tourism might be hit a bit, but I'm unconvinced this is a big enough deal for people to rethink their entire vacation plans.
- TheGRS 10y ago
  Enforcing visas through violating privacy seems like a good enough argument against this practice to me. What you're also gaining is a precedent to enforce more searches that look through not just your public life, but also the intimate parts that the government really doesn't have much business in analyzing.
  - MichaelGG 10y ago
    Yep you're right and this is the kind of arguments people should be making.
- mattm 10y ago
  The guy that had this happen to him recently was American and working for NASA AFAIK. If catching overstays is the issue why do this to citizens?
  - MichaelGG 10y ago
    Power grows? I'd like to know what contraband CBP expects to find on electronic devices. At any rate, they can only ask citizens to comply, not force them.
zeveb 10y ago
> So we're not catching "real" spies and terrorists; we're catching nannies trying to get paid under the table; do you think maybe we've got bigger fish to fry? This is a bad precedent, and what are we gaining? Nothing. A country which controls its borders gains … control of its borders. If it's illegal to enter a country as a tourist in order to live with one's girlfriend, well it's illegal to enter that country as a tourist in order to live with one's girlfriend. That doesn't mean the law is right, or good, or desirable, just that if one enters that country as a tourist in order to live with one's girlfriend, one will be breaking that country's law and is liable to be deported. Although I tend to favour open borders, myself, I think it's perfectly reasonable for the customs police of any country to turn away people trying to enter that country illegally.
- caf 10y ago
  That doesn't address the question of balance between the seriousness of the illegality and the invasiveness of the investigatory technique. It would certainly be feasible to require every vehicle to be fitted with a data/position logger so that a vast number of hitherto undetected breaches of the laws governing the road can be immediately detected and punished - but it's pretty clear that the invasiveness of this is not worth the gains in compliance.
  - zeveb 10y ago
    > That doesn't address the question of balance between the seriousness of the illegality and the invasiveness of the investigatory technique. No, it doesn't, because I addressed the statement, 'What are we gaining? Nothing.' I don't support the policy at all; I think it's a fundamental human right to encrypt data and not have to give the password to anyone.

67726e 10y ago

Rule of Law.

voxic11 10y ago
Sounds more like rule by law.
- 67726e 10y ago
  Sounds like no nation wants undocumented labor because it is very problematic.
andrewflnr 10y ago
It's so obvious as to hardly bear mentioning, but you can use this to excuse any violation of rights if you want. Sometimes "rule of law" just isn't worth it.
- 67726e 10y ago
  Sure, but you've offered no argument regarding this particular situation.

crpatino 10y ago

The people that voted for Trump get to gain a bunch of thankless, low-pay jobs that will no longer be allocated to illegal aliens. There might be bigger fishes to fry, but given that they never get invited when salmon is on the menu, they are happy to see the sardine cans comming in. And if they cannot or will not take the nanny jobs for themselves, at least they get to mock the uppity mothers that voted for Hillary and now are forced to dump their careers to take care of their own children.

MichaelGG 10y ago

You're gaining a more efficient CBP, enforcing visa rules and avoiding overstays like they do now, just with higher accuracy. Now if you want to argue that visa classes are silly and the US should just let anyone come in for whatever, fine, but that's a totally different argument. And yes, it's possible that this isn't worth the gains to CBP. But the US is pretty powerful and can force quite a bit of crap on people without getting too hurt. If it stops, it'll most likely be from efforts from e.g. Facebook lobbying against it. Business travelers have little choice. A lot of migrants have no choice (the benefits of US residency far outweigh the inconvenience for most people) -- we can test this out by looking at how many Mexicans or other Latam folks stay in the US vs, say, Canada over the next few years (confounding that is Canada removing visa requirements for Mexicans). Tourism might be hit a bit, but I'm unconvinced this is a big enough deal for people to rethink their entire vacation plans.

TheGRS 10y ago
Enforcing visas through violating privacy seems like a good enough argument against this practice to me. What you're also gaining is a precedent to enforce more searches that look through not just your public life, but also the intimate parts that the government really doesn't have much business in analyzing.
- MichaelGG 10y ago
  Yep you're right and this is the kind of arguments people should be making.
mattm 10y ago
The guy that had this happen to him recently was American and working for NASA AFAIK. If catching overstays is the issue why do this to citizens?
- MichaelGG 10y ago
  Power grows? I'd like to know what contraband CBP expects to find on electronic devices. At any rate, they can only ask citizens to comply, not force them.

zeveb 10y ago

> So we're not catching "real" spies and terrorists; we're catching nannies trying to get paid under the table; do you think maybe we've got bigger fish to fry? This is a bad precedent, and what are we gaining? Nothing. A country which controls its borders gains … control of its borders. If it's illegal to enter a country as a tourist in order to live with one's girlfriend, well it's illegal to enter that country as a tourist in order to live with one's girlfriend. That doesn't mean the law is right, or good, or desirable, just that if one enters that country as a tourist in order to live with one's girlfriend, one will be breaking that country's law and is liable to be deported. Although I tend to favour open borders, myself, I think it's perfectly reasonable for the customs police of any country to turn away people trying to enter that country illegally.

caf 10y ago
That doesn't address the question of balance between the seriousness of the illegality and the invasiveness of the investigatory technique. It would certainly be feasible to require every vehicle to be fitted with a data/position logger so that a vast number of hitherto undetected breaches of the laws governing the road can be immediately detected and punished - but it's pretty clear that the invasiveness of this is not worth the gains in compliance.
- zeveb 10y ago
  > That doesn't address the question of balance between the seriousness of the illegality and the invasiveness of the investigatory technique. No, it doesn't, because I addressed the statement, 'What are we gaining? Nothing.' I don't support the policy at all; I think it's a fundamental human right to encrypt data and not have to give the password to anyone.