7 ms·

French historian Henry Rousso held for 10 hours and threatened with deportation

84 points by cylinder 10y ago

devoply 10y ago
We need a movement to legalize borders as being under control of the legal system of the country. We don't need barbarians running our borders that answer to no law or the Constitution. If they have no covenant with the people like the law or the Constitution, what right do they have to any authority. It makes no sense that any such group of people should have all of this authority for which they are not held to account... and can't be held to account by the people who they are harassing and diminishing. It's nothing more than an analogue of a protection racket.
- chimeracoder 10y ago
  > We need a movement to legalize borders as being under control of the legal system of the country. They are subject to the legal system of the US. It's just that, within 100 miles of any border, Constitutional rights are limited, and non-citizens have fewer rights at border crossings.
  - devoply 10y ago
    What are your Constitutional Rights at border crossing? What are rights of non-citizens? From various incidents that have come out it seems as if it's the Wild West where whatever the idiot harassing you decides, with little recourse if you disagree. Further it makes no sense to arbitrarily take away all citizens rights in certain locations in the country... that's guilty before proven innocent.
    - chimeracoder 10y ago
      > Further it makes no sense to arbitrarily take away all citizens rights in certain locations in the country. That's not what I said. > What are your Constitutional Rights at border crossing? What are rights of non-citizens? https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/business/border-enforcement-airport-phones.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0&referer= https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/business/border-enforc... https://www.google.co.in/url?q=https://www.acluaz.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/aclu_border_rights.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwin9sPrp6_SAhXEp5QKHZXxCPcQFggPMAI&usg=AFQjCNGXY7EaKsLpCWkQTzKGg8Wh6r4CzA https://www.google.co.in/url?q=https://www.acluaz.org/sites/...
    - chetanahuja 10y ago
      "From various incidents that have come out it seems as if it's the Wild West where whatever the idiot harassing you decides, with little recourse if you disagree" you're right to a large extent. https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    The legal framework is that searches are permissible incident to a border crossing and some distance from the border after a recent border crossing. CBP won't get away with using that rule to search someone that has not recently crossed the border. When they setup checkpoints, they can't do arbitrary searches (they can just check vehicles for aliens). So they have less leeway in those situations than when they are doing a border search.
    - emilyfm 10y ago
      The CBP checkpoints within the US near the southern border routinely use drug sniffing dogs and stop and search vehicles, including arresting US citizens. They're not just checking identity. Example from a while back: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/yuma-156221-drug-bratcher.html http://www.ocregister.com/articles/yuma-156221-drug-bratcher...
- jdoliner 10y ago
  Borders are under control of the legal system and policing them is a right that's granted to the Federal government by the constitution. It makes complete sense that the Federal government, which is elected by US citizens would be able to policy foreigners entering the country without being held accountable to them. That's how every country in the world works. You may not like this system now that "the wrong people" have been elected to run the federal government but that's the way the system works and it's incredibly reasonable. I can't see how you draw the analogue of to a protection racket, they're not collecting money from anyone here.
  - devoply 10y ago
    Bullshit it's reasonable. First of all it's not only non-citizens that are being constantly stripped of their rights, it's non-citizens and citizens alike. Further, it often goes well beyond reasonable policing to invasive searches into the private lives of individuals including stripping away their rights to human dignity. It may have been reasonable 50 years ago. It's no longer reasonable. And it's a racket. In that they are supposedly protecting the people who they are robbing via taxes, and they are harassing the same people. And it's more or less security theater in that the point is the harassment and the humiliation. Because you are in fear you are supposed to feel protected.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 10y ago
      > It may have been reasonable 50 years ago. It's no longer reasonable. Why would it become less reasonable?
      - devoply 10y ago
        50 years ago you would have to be MLK or MX to have a whole dossier on you, someone important, notable, or problematic. Today every citizen has a virtual dossier on them that's a click away. The level of intrusion into private lives is excessive and in many ways illegal according to human rights conventions and the Constitution. Rights routinely infringed: Article 1 Right to Equality Article 2 Freedom from Discrimination Article 3 Right to Life, Liberty, Personal Security Article 5 Freedom from Torture and Degrading Treatment Article 9 Freedom from Arbitrary Arrest and Exile Article 10 Right to Fair Public Hearing Article 11 Right to be Considered Innocent until Proven Guilty Article 12 Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence Article 13 Right to Free Movement in and out of the Country Article 14 Right to Asylum in other Countries from Persecution Article 18 Freedom of Belief and Religion Article 19 Freedom of Opinion and Information Article 26 Right to Education Article 30 Freedom from State or Personal Interference in the above Rights
tomlock 10y ago
Even as an American citizen but an Australian resident - these stories make me afraid to travel to the US. Might the border agents find me to be unacceptably foreign?
- hubert123 10y ago
  There were plenty of other reasons to be afraid before, the random gun crime, police state, lack of healthcare and the TSA cancer machines / groping being the main ones. Being legally disinvited is only a fear if it's financially a hit to have to fly back from their airport.
  - cylinder 10y ago
    Thanks to the USA, those body scanners have infected the Australian airports already (for international departures).
  - tbihl 10y ago
    Was it really worth watering down a list of worthwhile fears with absurd sensationalism, just to make it longer? The risk of death in a vehicle far exceeds that of gun violence. If you're talking about injuries perpetrated by a stranger, that disparity grows more yet. The lack of healthcare doesn't exist, though you'll certainly have to pay up. But really, 'lack'? If you find yourself injured, you can probably look up and find a billboard for a hospital (see the previous point on how you're likely to get hurt.) And there will almost certainly be first rate care at said hospital. And most egregiously, 'cancer machines'? Are you referring to the backscatter x-rays, which deliver a smaller dose than a single banana? Or the millimeter wave machines, which operate at low intensity, and actually deliver no dose of ionizing radiation whatsoever, due to operating at a wavelength with photon energies measured in MILLI-eV? Why not plan your travels around local geology and only travel by boat? Because if you think you're sensitive to millimeter waves, you're really going to be upset at the gammas coming from ground sources, as well as the ones hitting you when you're not underneath those final 7km of sweet, sweet radiation-attenuating atmosphere. There are valid reasons not to travel to the US, even in your own post. Why bury them under such nonsense?
fixxer 10y ago
While I'm sure many will jump on this as a symptom of the current political climate, I'm more inclined to trust the statement from border control regarding an inexperienced agent. Everybody chill. For a foreign scholar performing a substantial lecture (like teaching a course), a J-1 visa is required. For a simple conference presentation, you should absolutely be able to get by on a B visa. Some new guy got confused. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Before Trump took office, customs was a pain in the ass for _citizens_ of this country. It will continue to be a pain in the ass for a long, long time.
- outworlder 10y ago
  You mean, you don't find anything wrong with that fact that someone was detained for 10 hours, due to a single, "inexperience" agent? And he was a well-connected individual. Others would likely endure far worse.
  - fixxer 10y ago
    I found it wrong when it happened before Trump. I continue to find it wrong. This is one of the main reasons I like small government. They tend to do a shitty job.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 10y ago
      > This is one of the main reasons I like small government. They tend to do a shitty job. Sorry, this doesn't parse for me. Why is that desirable?
      - tbihl 10y ago
        I believe poster meant he prefers to keep government small because they muck things up regardless of size. Better to minimize the impact that way.
      - fixxer 10y ago
        Have you found large institutions to be more responsible and efficient? I have not. I have found the opposite. Large orgs always have stories like this. Management and accountability are hard to scale and the problem is as true for the private sector as it is for public. Customs is a straw man for the argument at large, but nevertheless the statement works: I prefer small government because I've seen the collassal fuckups they are capable of at scale. (My favorite government entity is the USGS) @fictioncircle: no reply available, so I'll address your question here: no, we should not ban large business. We should provide basic structure to support competition. Since government is not something we can frame competitively (we can't pick which government to use once one is established without substantial "frictions"), we should just keep them small and out of the way.
drpgq 10y ago
It will be interested to see how much tourism goes down.
- fixxer 10y ago
  Implication being that Trump's hand was in this fuck up? Dude, seriously: customs needs no help to suck more at their job. This shit has always happened.
- motoboi 10y ago
  I am seriously considering changing my vacation destination this year from New York to someplace else. We love New York and want very much to visit some places we haven't had the chance in other trips, but my girlfriend doesn't speak english and something like that would be tremendously traumatic for us. I know at least a friend who cancelled a trip to the USA fearing immigration problems.
- dhfhduk 10y ago
  It's already going down: http://www.frommers.com/tips/miscellaneous/the-travel-press-is-reporting-the-trump-slump-a-devastating-drop-in-tourism-to-the-united-states http://www.frommers.com/tips/miscellaneous/the-travel-press-... http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/seek-foreign-flights-nyc-travel-ban-data-suggests-article-1.2980937 http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/seek-foreign-flights-nyc...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
clamprecht 10y ago
The real question for me is: Is this happening more than it was before, or is it just being reported more?
- maxerickson 10y ago
  The immigration lawyer quoted in the article doesn't waffle about it. Mr. Mills said the treatment Mr. Rousso experienced was unusual, but representative of a shift in how some border agents are approaching their jobs. “Now they’re looking really hard for reasons to deny, instead of reasons to admit,” he said.
- ikonst 10y ago
  I've read similar stories before the current administration. Telling a CBP officer that you're going to be "paid to lecture" is not recommended. This is a kind of honesty that doesn't return a favor.
prymitive 10y ago
I wonder if those stories that started appearing in the media since the Trump ban order are really showing a true change in US border control actions, or are they just a hot topic so both travelers and media are more eager to report on that. It is likely that those kind of detentions were happening for years, but they didn't got much news coverage. After all if you don't like Trumps policies you will happily read about related stories as it confirms what you already believe in. Googling for some data yields some results, but those seem to be big immigration numbers, rather than incidental short detentions for random travelers, so it's hard for me to draw any conclusion. Examples: http://cmsny.org/immigration-detention-behind-the-record-numbers/ http://cmsny.org/immigration-detention-behind-the-record-num... https://www.ice.gov/removal-statistics/2016 https://www.ice.gov/removal-statistics/2016 I think it's best to not get carried away just because a few people got detained. It seems a bit too little to call it policy shift for border control officers, at least as long it stays just incidental issue. FUD is always quick to spread and hard to fight against.
- justin66 10y ago
  If the stories of deplorable and pointless detentions are true, and there are no concomitant stories of terrorists being stopped at the border or whatever (something one assumes the government would be highly motivated to report), does it actually matter that the stories were under-reported previously in the press? The important thing is that the issue gets attention and is resolved.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - mattnewton 10y ago
    This^ I don't care if it was done under Obama too, it doesn't bless it and shouldn't make it okay with liberals. Trump is still worthy of criticism by association because of his immigration policies clearly back this kind of behavior. And Obama is too if he condoned this.
- hackuser 10y ago
  We lack quantitative data, but the article has an expert practitioner's impression: [Immigration attorney Jason] Mills said the treatment Mr. Rousso experienced was unusual, but representative of a shift in how some border agents are approaching their jobs. "Now they’re looking really hard for reasons to deny, instead of reasons to admit," he said.
m0llusk 10y ago
My understanding of Capitalism indicates this is an opportunity to improve results by experimenting with alternatives.
- aniro 10y ago
  Ah, yes.. profit incentive as the silver bullet for all that ails. This myopic view is foolish and needs to die.
legostormtroopr 10y ago
So an academic came on a tourist visa, but was giving a talk related to his work and accepting money. Under US visa rules this is allowed, but is not being classified as "work", so a tourist visa is sufficient. Except the Agent (who has probably never met an academic) didn't realise this and incorrectly (although understandably) concluded that the Mr. Rousso was working while on a tourist visa. Especially since Mr. Roussos speaking fee is probably the equivalent of a few days work for the customs agent This is probably a simple mix-up that escalated because of a clash of cultures (both national and educational).
- maxerickson 10y ago
  It's easy to fix. Dramatically simplify the visa system. If people are loudly concerned about competition for jobs, address it with employment taxes on workers that are not residents.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > This is probably a simple mix-up What basis is there for concluding that? Also, apparently Rousso has been traveling to the US for years, presumable sometimes in the same circumstances, without a problem.
- justin66 10y ago
  > This is probably a simple mix-up that escalated because of a clash of cultures (both national and educational). Twenty minutes would be indicative of a simple mix-up. 10 hours is honestly just kind of strange (think of how many people in the escalation process didn't understand the rules or didn't care) and IMO indicates a pretty serious problem.
- polotics 10y ago
  a (quote) "simple mix up"? 10 stressful hours? I dread going for work again will avoid having to.
- ghaff 10y ago
  It's not unique to the US. See this story related to the UK for example: https://webdevlaw.uk/2016/08/22/uk-conference-speaker-visa/ https://webdevlaw.uk/2016/08/22/uk-conference-speaker-visa/ In fact, the UK appears to require a different visa for this purpose. (And it's not clear to me from a couple of things I've read that the Tourist Waiver Program covers paid engagements in the US arranged in advance--though there is a Business Waiver Program.) Getting paid to speak at a conference can definitely raise issues if you're used to just getting a standard visa for tourism or just attending a conference.
dmode 10y ago
This is absolutely not the norm. If this thing was resolved in a 20 mins after the mix-up we could agree. But 10 hrs for a business visa is not the norm. As someone who has traveled at least 50 times in pre-Trump era on immigration purposes, I have extensive experience with border agents. In fact, once coming back from my trip to Mexico, I had forgotten to get my I-20 stamped from my school. The border agents where phenomenal to deal with this, they produced a new I-20 with current dates and requested me to get it stamped with my school in the next 48 hrs and fax USCIS a copy. This was done within an hour. I shudder to think what will happen with a situation like this today.
- stevenjgarner 10y ago
  I disagree, and I too have extensive experience over many decades with border agents. I have both a Permanent Resident "green" card and a Global Entry card, yet 4 times in the past 12 months (and many times prior) I was extracted for Secondary Processing at the border, held waiting for hours without being allowed to use my cell phone, missing my connecting flights yet ultimately admitted into the U.S.. Every time it costs the U.S. tax payer an unnecessary fortune (I have Global Entry! - which itself took many many hours and dozens of pieces of paper and extreme vetting). The last time I was allowed directly into the U.S. without Secondary Processing was in the 90's. I don't find his story at all unusual.

84 points by cylinder 10y ago

We need a movement to legalize borders as being under control of the legal system of the country. We don't need barbarians running our borders that answer to no law or the Constitution. If they have no covenant with the people like the law or the Constitution, what right do they have to any authority. It makes no sense that any such group of people should have all of this authority for which they are not held to account... and can't be held to account by the people who they are harassing and diminishing. It's nothing more than an analogue of a protection racket.

chimeracoder 10y ago
> We need a movement to legalize borders as being under control of the legal system of the country. They are subject to the legal system of the US. It's just that, within 100 miles of any border, Constitutional rights are limited, and non-citizens have fewer rights at border crossings.
- devoply 10y ago
  What are your Constitutional Rights at border crossing? What are rights of non-citizens? From various incidents that have come out it seems as if it's the Wild West where whatever the idiot harassing you decides, with little recourse if you disagree. Further it makes no sense to arbitrarily take away all citizens rights in certain locations in the country... that's guilty before proven innocent.
  - chimeracoder 10y ago
    > Further it makes no sense to arbitrarily take away all citizens rights in certain locations in the country. That's not what I said. > What are your Constitutional Rights at border crossing? What are rights of non-citizens? https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/business/border-enforcement-airport-phones.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0&referer= https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/business/border-enforc... https://www.google.co.in/url?q=https://www.acluaz.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/aclu_border_rights.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwin9sPrp6_SAhXEp5QKHZXxCPcQFggPMAI&usg=AFQjCNGXY7EaKsLpCWkQTzKGg8Wh6r4CzA https://www.google.co.in/url?q=https://www.acluaz.org/sites/...
  - chetanahuja 10y ago
    "From various incidents that have come out it seems as if it's the Wild West where whatever the idiot harassing you decides, with little recourse if you disagree" you're right to a large extent. https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
- maxerickson 10y ago
  The legal framework is that searches are permissible incident to a border crossing and some distance from the border after a recent border crossing. CBP won't get away with using that rule to search someone that has not recently crossed the border. When they setup checkpoints, they can't do arbitrary searches (they can just check vehicles for aliens). So they have less leeway in those situations than when they are doing a border search.
  - emilyfm 10y ago
    The CBP checkpoints within the US near the southern border routinely use drug sniffing dogs and stop and search vehicles, including arresting US citizens. They're not just checking identity. Example from a while back: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/yuma-156221-drug-bratcher.html http://www.ocregister.com/articles/yuma-156221-drug-bratcher...
jdoliner 10y ago
Borders are under control of the legal system and policing them is a right that's granted to the Federal government by the constitution. It makes complete sense that the Federal government, which is elected by US citizens would be able to policy foreigners entering the country without being held accountable to them. That's how every country in the world works. You may not like this system now that "the wrong people" have been elected to run the federal government but that's the way the system works and it's incredibly reasonable. I can't see how you draw the analogue of to a protection racket, they're not collecting money from anyone here.
- devoply 10y ago
  Bullshit it's reasonable. First of all it's not only non-citizens that are being constantly stripped of their rights, it's non-citizens and citizens alike. Further, it often goes well beyond reasonable policing to invasive searches into the private lives of individuals including stripping away their rights to human dignity. It may have been reasonable 50 years ago. It's no longer reasonable. And it's a racket. In that they are supposedly protecting the people who they are robbing via taxes, and they are harassing the same people. And it's more or less security theater in that the point is the harassment and the humiliation. Because you are in fear you are supposed to feel protected.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 10y ago
    > It may have been reasonable 50 years ago. It's no longer reasonable. Why would it become less reasonable?
    - devoply 10y ago
      50 years ago you would have to be MLK or MX to have a whole dossier on you, someone important, notable, or problematic. Today every citizen has a virtual dossier on them that's a click away. The level of intrusion into private lives is excessive and in many ways illegal according to human rights conventions and the Constitution. Rights routinely infringed: Article 1 Right to Equality Article 2 Freedom from Discrimination Article 3 Right to Life, Liberty, Personal Security Article 5 Freedom from Torture and Degrading Treatment Article 9 Freedom from Arbitrary Arrest and Exile Article 10 Right to Fair Public Hearing Article 11 Right to be Considered Innocent until Proven Guilty Article 12 Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence Article 13 Right to Free Movement in and out of the Country Article 14 Right to Asylum in other Countries from Persecution Article 18 Freedom of Belief and Religion Article 19 Freedom of Opinion and Information Article 26 Right to Education Article 30 Freedom from State or Personal Interference in the above Rights

tomlock 10y ago

Even as an American citizen but an Australian resident - these stories make me afraid to travel to the US. Might the border agents find me to be unacceptably foreign?

hubert123 10y ago
There were plenty of other reasons to be afraid before, the random gun crime, police state, lack of healthcare and the TSA cancer machines / groping being the main ones. Being legally disinvited is only a fear if it's financially a hit to have to fly back from their airport.
- cylinder 10y ago
  Thanks to the USA, those body scanners have infected the Australian airports already (for international departures).
- tbihl 10y ago
  Was it really worth watering down a list of worthwhile fears with absurd sensationalism, just to make it longer? The risk of death in a vehicle far exceeds that of gun violence. If you're talking about injuries perpetrated by a stranger, that disparity grows more yet. The lack of healthcare doesn't exist, though you'll certainly have to pay up. But really, 'lack'? If you find yourself injured, you can probably look up and find a billboard for a hospital (see the previous point on how you're likely to get hurt.) And there will almost certainly be first rate care at said hospital. And most egregiously, 'cancer machines'? Are you referring to the backscatter x-rays, which deliver a smaller dose than a single banana? Or the millimeter wave machines, which operate at low intensity, and actually deliver no dose of ionizing radiation whatsoever, due to operating at a wavelength with photon energies measured in MILLI-eV? Why not plan your travels around local geology and only travel by boat? Because if you think you're sensitive to millimeter waves, you're really going to be upset at the gammas coming from ground sources, as well as the ones hitting you when you're not underneath those final 7km of sweet, sweet radiation-attenuating atmosphere. There are valid reasons not to travel to the US, even in your own post. Why bury them under such nonsense?

fixxer 10y ago

While I'm sure many will jump on this as a symptom of the current political climate, I'm more inclined to trust the statement from border control regarding an inexperienced agent. Everybody chill. For a foreign scholar performing a substantial lecture (like teaching a course), a J-1 visa is required. For a simple conference presentation, you should absolutely be able to get by on a B visa. Some new guy got confused. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Before Trump took office, customs was a pain in the ass for _citizens_ of this country. It will continue to be a pain in the ass for a long, long time.

outworlder 10y ago
You mean, you don't find anything wrong with that fact that someone was detained for 10 hours, due to a single, "inexperience" agent? And he was a well-connected individual. Others would likely endure far worse.
- fixxer 10y ago
  I found it wrong when it happened before Trump. I continue to find it wrong. This is one of the main reasons I like small government. They tend to do a shitty job.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 10y ago
    > This is one of the main reasons I like small government. They tend to do a shitty job. Sorry, this doesn't parse for me. Why is that desirable?
    - tbihl 10y ago
      I believe poster meant he prefers to keep government small because they muck things up regardless of size. Better to minimize the impact that way.
    - fixxer 10y ago
      Have you found large institutions to be more responsible and efficient? I have not. I have found the opposite. Large orgs always have stories like this. Management and accountability are hard to scale and the problem is as true for the private sector as it is for public. Customs is a straw man for the argument at large, but nevertheless the statement works: I prefer small government because I've seen the collassal fuckups they are capable of at scale. (My favorite government entity is the USGS) @fictioncircle: no reply available, so I'll address your question here: no, we should not ban large business. We should provide basic structure to support competition. Since government is not something we can frame competitively (we can't pick which government to use once one is established without substantial "frictions"), we should just keep them small and out of the way.

drpgq 10y ago

It will be interested to see how much tourism goes down.

fixxer 10y ago
Implication being that Trump's hand was in this fuck up? Dude, seriously: customs needs no help to suck more at their job. This shit has always happened.
motoboi 10y ago
I am seriously considering changing my vacation destination this year from New York to someplace else. We love New York and want very much to visit some places we haven't had the chance in other trips, but my girlfriend doesn't speak english and something like that would be tremendously traumatic for us. I know at least a friend who cancelled a trip to the USA fearing immigration problems.
dhfhduk 10y ago
It's already going down: http://www.frommers.com/tips/miscellaneous/the-travel-press-is-reporting-the-trump-slump-a-devastating-drop-in-tourism-to-the-united-states http://www.frommers.com/tips/miscellaneous/the-travel-press-... http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/seek-foreign-flights-nyc-travel-ban-data-suggests-article-1.2980937 http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/seek-foreign-flights-nyc...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

clamprecht 10y ago

The real question for me is: Is this happening more than it was before, or is it just being reported more?

maxerickson 10y ago
The immigration lawyer quoted in the article doesn't waffle about it. Mr. Mills said the treatment Mr. Rousso experienced was unusual, but representative of a shift in how some border agents are approaching their jobs. “Now they’re looking really hard for reasons to deny, instead of reasons to admit,” he said.
ikonst 10y ago
I've read similar stories before the current administration. Telling a CBP officer that you're going to be "paid to lecture" is not recommended. This is a kind of honesty that doesn't return a favor.

prymitive 10y ago

I wonder if those stories that started appearing in the media since the Trump ban order are really showing a true change in US border control actions, or are they just a hot topic so both travelers and media are more eager to report on that. It is likely that those kind of detentions were happening for years, but they didn't got much news coverage. After all if you don't like Trumps policies you will happily read about related stories as it confirms what you already believe in. Googling for some data yields some results, but those seem to be big immigration numbers, rather than incidental short detentions for random travelers, so it's hard for me to draw any conclusion. Examples: http://cmsny.org/immigration-detention-behind-the-record-numbers/ http://cmsny.org/immigration-detention-behind-the-record-num... https://www.ice.gov/removal-statistics/2016 https://www.ice.gov/removal-statistics/2016 I think it's best to not get carried away just because a few people got detained. It seems a bit too little to call it policy shift for border control officers, at least as long it stays just incidental issue. FUD is always quick to spread and hard to fight against.

justin66 10y ago
If the stories of deplorable and pointless detentions are true, and there are no concomitant stories of terrorists being stopped at the border or whatever (something one assumes the government would be highly motivated to report), does it actually matter that the stories were under-reported previously in the press? The important thing is that the issue gets attention and is resolved.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- mattnewton 10y ago
  This^ I don't care if it was done under Obama too, it doesn't bless it and shouldn't make it okay with liberals. Trump is still worthy of criticism by association because of his immigration policies clearly back this kind of behavior. And Obama is too if he condoned this.
hackuser 10y ago
We lack quantitative data, but the article has an expert practitioner's impression: [Immigration attorney Jason] Mills said the treatment Mr. Rousso experienced was unusual, but representative of a shift in how some border agents are approaching their jobs. "Now they’re looking really hard for reasons to deny, instead of reasons to admit," he said.

m0llusk 10y ago

My understanding of Capitalism indicates this is an opportunity to improve results by experimenting with alternatives.

aniro 10y ago
Ah, yes.. profit incentive as the silver bullet for all that ails. This myopic view is foolish and needs to die.

legostormtroopr 10y ago

So an academic came on a tourist visa, but was giving a talk related to his work and accepting money. Under US visa rules this is allowed, but is not being classified as "work", so a tourist visa is sufficient. Except the Agent (who has probably never met an academic) didn't realise this and incorrectly (although understandably) concluded that the Mr. Rousso was working while on a tourist visa. Especially since Mr. Roussos speaking fee is probably the equivalent of a few days work for the customs agent This is probably a simple mix-up that escalated because of a clash of cultures (both national and educational).

maxerickson 10y ago
It's easy to fix. Dramatically simplify the visa system. If people are loudly concerned about competition for jobs, address it with employment taxes on workers that are not residents.
hackuser 10y ago
> This is probably a simple mix-up What basis is there for concluding that? Also, apparently Rousso has been traveling to the US for years, presumable sometimes in the same circumstances, without a problem.
justin66 10y ago
> This is probably a simple mix-up that escalated because of a clash of cultures (both national and educational). Twenty minutes would be indicative of a simple mix-up. 10 hours is honestly just kind of strange (think of how many people in the escalation process didn't understand the rules or didn't care) and IMO indicates a pretty serious problem.
polotics 10y ago
a (quote) "simple mix up"? 10 stressful hours? I dread going for work again will avoid having to.
ghaff 10y ago
It's not unique to the US. See this story related to the UK for example: https://webdevlaw.uk/2016/08/22/uk-conference-speaker-visa/ https://webdevlaw.uk/2016/08/22/uk-conference-speaker-visa/ In fact, the UK appears to require a different visa for this purpose. (And it's not clear to me from a couple of things I've read that the Tourist Waiver Program covers paid engagements in the US arranged in advance--though there is a Business Waiver Program.) Getting paid to speak at a conference can definitely raise issues if you're used to just getting a standard visa for tourism or just attending a conference.

dmode 10y ago

This is absolutely not the norm. If this thing was resolved in a 20 mins after the mix-up we could agree. But 10 hrs for a business visa is not the norm. As someone who has traveled at least 50 times in pre-Trump era on immigration purposes, I have extensive experience with border agents. In fact, once coming back from my trip to Mexico, I had forgotten to get my I-20 stamped from my school. The border agents where phenomenal to deal with this, they produced a new I-20 with current dates and requested me to get it stamped with my school in the next 48 hrs and fax USCIS a copy. This was done within an hour. I shudder to think what will happen with a situation like this today.

stevenjgarner 10y ago
I disagree, and I too have extensive experience over many decades with border agents. I have both a Permanent Resident "green" card and a Global Entry card, yet 4 times in the past 12 months (and many times prior) I was extracted for Secondary Processing at the border, held waiting for hours without being allowed to use my cell phone, missing my connecting flights yet ultimately admitted into the U.S.. Every time it costs the U.S. tax payer an unnecessary fortune (I have Global Entry! - which itself took many many hours and dozens of pieces of paper and extreme vetting). The last time I was allowed directly into the U.S. without Secondary Processing was in the 90's. I don't find his story at all unusual.