I'm sure that's true. But it doesn't change my core argument: Every time we write something that reaches a wider audience (social-media-randoms and pseudo-rando

I'm sure that's true. But it doesn't change my core argument: Every time we write something that reaches a wider audience (social-media-randoms and pseudo-randoms alike), we have an opportunity to stress to the reader that they should check these facts for themselves - either by pointing to data and examples (which my original comment accused our friend grugq of failing to do), or by simply stating to readers that they should be wary of bad travel advice and look into it. Now that I flesh out my argument, I realise I'm scapegoating this article a bit, and my real lament is that there AREN'T enough accounts and examples of what to do in these awkward border situations. The only commentary I've seen from legal professionals is that there "hasn't been a case" yet, which would flesh out the meaning of the types of demands border agents are allowed to make. It's a pretty tricky problem. Democracies are good at improving things inside their borders, but that stops -at- the border, and the current situation is the proof. I'm at a loss for now as to how it's going to improve.