3 ms·

>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 trig

>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?

DyslexicAtheist 10y ago
yes, both could be triggers
- csydas 10y ago
  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-detained-immigration-henry-rousso.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/26/us/french-historian-de...
  - PeterisP 10y ago
    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/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-3422.html 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) .
    - csydas 10y ago
      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

>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?

DyslexicAtheist 10y ago

yes, both could be triggers

csydas 10y ago
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-detained-immigration-henry-rousso.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/26/us/french-historian-de...
- PeterisP 10y ago
  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/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-3422.html 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) .
  - csydas 10y ago
    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