6 ms·

Can't verify the truthiness of the story, but the US has become one hell of a paranoid state.

slazaro 9y ago
What bugs me the most is that a single ignorant person can have this much power, with almost zero recourse from the victim. But hey, "land of the free".
- erispoe 9y ago
  There is major difference in the rights you have before and after you cross the border. That's true for foreigners, but for citizens too.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    The text of the Constitution disagrees: >No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Note how the early part specifies citizens, the latter part specifies persons. At border control a person is in jurisdiction of the USA legal system and so, according to the literal text deserves equal protection of the law. I'm aware the established interpretation differs, however, the writer of the amendment clearly meant to extend the rights and protections to all IMO.
    - maxerickson 9y ago
      The amendment repeatedly says "State", it isn't talking about the Federal government. There's still due process to consider at the border, but applying border controls is pretty well established as due process.
      - nate_meurer 9y ago
        > The amendment repeatedly says "State", it isn't talking about the Federal government. True, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly decided that the 5th amendment imposes both due process and equal protection requirements on the federal govt, just as the 14th imposes them on the states. E.g., see Lawrence v. Texas. > "...applying border controls is pretty well established as due process." This is a pretty vague statement, but it not really true in any sense. The constitutionality of our current border control practices is still being vigorously litigated.
        maxerickson 9y ago
        Which physical border search has been ruled unconstitutional?
        nate_meurer 9y ago
        United States v. Cotterman, for example, declared a major piece of CBP's policy (forensic examination without probable cause) unconstitutional. However you seem a bit confused. You started talking about due process, but now you appear to be shifting the goalposts to 4th amendment issues. Your statement, "applying border controls is pretty well established as due process", doesn't really make sense. Due process is only one of the many thorny issues that embroil the border search exception, and the exception's constitutionality along due process lines has not been decided by the supreme court one way or the other. Perhaps I should ask you, how did you arrive at "pretty well established"? Can you provide a bit of case history?
        maxerickson 9y ago
        Aliens are detained upon arrival and may be detained at length. If the arbitrary permitting of entry that follows that detention wasn't considered due process we wouldn't have border controls. My other response was a somewhat sarcastic reply to The constitutionality of our current border control practices is still being vigorously litigated.. It's the details that are being litigated, not the overall detention and search of foreign nationals.
weberc2 9y ago
Anecdotally, I got roughly the same treatment when I visited England except that I was eventually permitted entry.
- iagooar 9y ago
  Your "except" makes this story 99.99% different from the one of the OP.
  - weberc2 9y ago
    Of course, this is nonsense. Here's another data point; in this case, a female, American conference speaker was jailed at the UK border: https://medium.com/@rachelnabors/wtfuk-73009d5623b4 https://medium.com/@rachelnabors/wtfuk-73009d5623b4
maxerickson 9y ago
I would say this kind of denial is par for the course over at least the last 20 years. Entry without a visa also represents a relaxation of policy that existed 30 years go (just 10 years for Hungary!): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_Waiver_Program#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_Waiver_Program#History
- lucideer 9y ago
  This may be true, but in this case (and I'm sure many like it), entry with a visa would be highly preferable. At least you can plan accordingly if your visa application is rejected and have a more complete record of the application/rejection/reasons given.
exelius 9y ago
Hungary might as well be Zimbabwe in the mind of most Americans (especially the type to be working as border guards at the US-Canada border). They don't really grok that modern civilization exists outside the US, England, Germany and France. I wish I was joking.
- thieving_magpie 9y ago
  That might be the most ridiculous statement I've read on HN. To the point that I can't even figure out what you're suggesting. Are you saying Americans aren't aware Hungary is a modern civilization? I'd say that was pretty off base.
  - jprince 9y ago
    ...well, I mean, it IS just next to Zimbabwe. Can't be that great, can it? /sarcasm
  - ionised 9y ago
    He's suggesting that most Americans don't own a passport, or have ever travelled outside the US, and have a tenuous grasp of world geography/geopolitics. I'd find it hard to argue.
    - thieving_magpie 9y ago
      Yes it can be very hard for non-affluent Americans to travel if they're not near a border. Like anywhere else. Americans knowledge of geography could certainly be improved. I don't think it means anything negative about the people though.
      - JBlue42 9y ago
        How is it not negative to be aware of the world around you, especially when you're (for now) the most powerful country in it and can vote for people that enact policies that have severe repercussions on many people? Celebrating ignorance is one reason we have the current administration and Congress.
dredmorbius 9y ago
As the submitter, my thoughts as well. Regardless of the truth of the particular story related, there are sufficiently many similar stories I've heard that this one rings true. And it's hugely negative for the US and its reputation abroad.

What bugs me the most is that a single ignorant person can have this much power, with almost zero recourse from the victim. But hey, "land of the free".

erispoe 9y ago
There is major difference in the rights you have before and after you cross the border. That's true for foreigners, but for citizens too.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  The text of the Constitution disagrees: >No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Note how the early part specifies citizens, the latter part specifies persons. At border control a person is in jurisdiction of the USA legal system and so, according to the literal text deserves equal protection of the law. I'm aware the established interpretation differs, however, the writer of the amendment clearly meant to extend the rights and protections to all IMO.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    The amendment repeatedly says "State", it isn't talking about the Federal government. There's still due process to consider at the border, but applying border controls is pretty well established as due process.
    - nate_meurer 9y ago
      > The amendment repeatedly says "State", it isn't talking about the Federal government. True, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly decided that the 5th amendment imposes both due process and equal protection requirements on the federal govt, just as the 14th imposes them on the states. E.g., see Lawrence v. Texas. > "...applying border controls is pretty well established as due process." This is a pretty vague statement, but it not really true in any sense. The constitutionality of our current border control practices is still being vigorously litigated.
      - maxerickson 9y ago
        Which physical border search has been ruled unconstitutional?
        nate_meurer 9y ago
        United States v. Cotterman, for example, declared a major piece of CBP's policy (forensic examination without probable cause) unconstitutional. However you seem a bit confused. You started talking about due process, but now you appear to be shifting the goalposts to 4th amendment issues. Your statement, "applying border controls is pretty well established as due process", doesn't really make sense. Due process is only one of the many thorny issues that embroil the border search exception, and the exception's constitutionality along due process lines has not been decided by the supreme court one way or the other. Perhaps I should ask you, how did you arrive at "pretty well established"? Can you provide a bit of case history?
        maxerickson 9y ago
        Aliens are detained upon arrival and may be detained at length. If the arbitrary permitting of entry that follows that detention wasn't considered due process we wouldn't have border controls. My other response was a somewhat sarcastic reply to The constitutionality of our current border control practices is still being vigorously litigated.. It's the details that are being litigated, not the overall detention and search of foreign nationals.

weberc2 9y ago

Anecdotally, I got roughly the same treatment when I visited England except that I was eventually permitted entry.

iagooar 9y ago
Your "except" makes this story 99.99% different from the one of the OP.
- weberc2 9y ago
  Of course, this is nonsense. Here's another data point; in this case, a female, American conference speaker was jailed at the UK border: https://medium.com/@rachelnabors/wtfuk-73009d5623b4 https://medium.com/@rachelnabors/wtfuk-73009d5623b4

maxerickson 9y ago

I would say this kind of denial is par for the course over at least the last 20 years. Entry without a visa also represents a relaxation of policy that existed 30 years go (just 10 years for Hungary!): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_Waiver_Program#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_Waiver_Program#History

lucideer 9y ago
This may be true, but in this case (and I'm sure many like it), entry with a visa would be highly preferable. At least you can plan accordingly if your visa application is rejected and have a more complete record of the application/rejection/reasons given.

exelius 9y ago

Hungary might as well be Zimbabwe in the mind of most Americans (especially the type to be working as border guards at the US-Canada border). They don't really grok that modern civilization exists outside the US, England, Germany and France. I wish I was joking.

thieving_magpie 9y ago
That might be the most ridiculous statement I've read on HN. To the point that I can't even figure out what you're suggesting. Are you saying Americans aren't aware Hungary is a modern civilization? I'd say that was pretty off base.
- jprince 9y ago
  ...well, I mean, it IS just next to Zimbabwe. Can't be that great, can it? /sarcasm
- ionised 9y ago
  He's suggesting that most Americans don't own a passport, or have ever travelled outside the US, and have a tenuous grasp of world geography/geopolitics. I'd find it hard to argue.
  - thieving_magpie 9y ago
    Yes it can be very hard for non-affluent Americans to travel if they're not near a border. Like anywhere else. Americans knowledge of geography could certainly be improved. I don't think it means anything negative about the people though.
    - JBlue42 9y ago
      How is it not negative to be aware of the world around you, especially when you're (for now) the most powerful country in it and can vote for people that enact policies that have severe repercussions on many people? Celebrating ignorance is one reason we have the current administration and Congress.

dredmorbius 9y ago

As the submitter, my thoughts as well. Regardless of the truth of the particular story related, there are sufficiently many similar stories I've heard that this one rings true. And it's hugely negative for the US and its reputation abroad.