5 ms·

I don't see a single reason why you can be forced to incriminate yourself. If confession equals conviction, laws about right to remain silent should also apply.

I don't see a single reason why you can be forced to incriminate yourself. If confession equals conviction, laws about right to remain silent should also apply. I would happily say "no" and smile if I was you when asked about what you did in a different country that they have no business knowing.

maxerickson 8y ago
That's sort of orthogonal to the consequence of honestly answering the question. And of course the policy also says that if they think you lied, they might use that as a reason to deny entry in the future.
- doombolt 8y ago
  Yes, but did not they teach you to think before talking? They are free to not let you in, but you are free to ignore any irrelevant or intimate questions.
  - maxerickson 8y ago
    I don't understand your "teach you to think before talking" remark. I said your comment was orthogonal because it didn't address anything I had said in my other comment. Of course someone wanting to the enter the country will weigh their options, I'm just laying out the potential consequences, for someone that apparently had not heard of them (the other commenter, not you).
  - bregma 8y ago
    Nope. Ignoring or refusing to answer the question is grounds for denying admission or being permanently denied admission.
    - doombolt 8y ago
      You can just say "no". And smile. Will be completely correct on your part.
      - coryfklein 8y ago
        > Guard: "Have you consumed weed in the last 30 days?" > You: "No" If you have consumed in the last 30 days, then your "No" response is definitely not correct.
        doombolt 8y ago
        Yes it is correct. They have no business asking this. If a question is incorrect, you can answer whatever you like to it. Lying is only giving wrong answers on correct questions. If a person sticks their nose where it does not belong, too bad. I have rights to do any kinds of thingd to my body, and I have exactly zero obligation to disclose it, unless in strict contexts of medical help or driving.
cmrdporcupine 8y ago
You have no rights at the border.
- doombolt 8y ago
  Say who? Did you notify the UN about these findings?
  - bregma 8y ago
    https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/3846 https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/3846
    - doombolt 8y ago
      You seriously do not think that you can override Human Rights agreements with some "congress bill", do you? For some time you might act that way, but you are trespassing. There is no right to cross the border, but there's loads of other rights, human and otherwise, that you still undeniably have while being at the border.
      - bregma 8y ago
        The legislation I linked to suspends all constitutionally-guaranteed rights "at" the border (ie within 100 miles of a border crossing, including any airports with international flights) if you are not an American citizen. The suspension of constitutional rights has been tried and upheld by a number of SCOTUS cases. There is no international body regulating any other kind of right, despite the well-meaning intention of a number of organizations.
        doombolt 8y ago
        If you are not an American citizen you are still a citizen of some other country, which has its own obligations before its citizens to uphold their human rights, even when they cross someone other's border. This may end up ugly for the USA if they try to abuse that decision. Not every country in this world is Mexico.
xoa 8y ago
>I don't see a single reason why you can be forced to incriminate yourself. While thread didn't really get into citizenship, if you're aren't a citizen of the state in question you have no right of entry. The state has the right to ask for any information they wish and set criteria for entry as they wish. It's not a matter of "incrimination" as in you go to jail, it's a matter of obtaining permission for entry, you have no "right to remain silent". And in a democratic state I don't think that's immoral either. Knowing is in fact their business, and if it shouldn't be then the government should tell its border controls to not inquire at all. >I would happily say "no" and smile if I was you when asked about what you did in a different country that they have no business knowing. Obviously as a practical matter there are many situations where the odds of getting caught are minimal to non-existent, but I would be very cautious about casually committing perjury. Particularly in this worrying day and age of photos everywhere and ever increasing ML that can actually make sense of it and centralized datasets that governments may be able to gain access to. For example, particularly when the behavior is made legal I'd expect there to be a lot more people who post pictures of themselves using cannabis or not being concerned if someone else in the picture is because of course it's legal. Combine with spreading facial recognition and person tagging on places like Facebook and advertising (since it's legalized) that will be actively and legally interested in "is so-and-so a user so we can sell them related products" and someone could quite easily end up in a database saying "confirmed to use cannabis" without ever knowing. There are many times where "the coverup is worse then the crime" is quite true, and something that would merely get you politely or not so politely turned away would turn into a serious crime by lying about it. You can't know when an authority is asking you something out of actual interest vs a question they know the answer to already just to test you. Honesty and political pressure seems better in this specific case given that it's not like there isn't already a major legalization movement in the US too. Canada is an extremely important business partner and source of tourism and ally. If enough Canadians were denied entry over this then even under this administration pressure to simply change the rules to ignore it would be very high. If not under this one then when the Democrats retake control.
- VLM 8y ago
  "if you're aren't a citizen of the state in question you have no right of entry." There's a huge racial component. Essentially all of this "you're not allowed to" talk is strictly for white people only.
monkeynotes 8y ago
You have very few rights at a border. Almost any border, not just the US. A border is very much like a no-man's land where the law of the country you are entering or leaving is suspended. You can be held, searched without cause, refused entry at a guard's discretion (no reason is needed), and so on. Arguing your 'rights' at a border is one very good way to be seen as cause to get secondary screening and perhaps refusal of entry. And they are pretty good at detecting if you are lying - lots and lots of training there, you'd be surprised how easily unprepared people give themselves away in even the most simple lies.

maxerickson 8y ago

That's sort of orthogonal to the consequence of honestly answering the question. And of course the policy also says that if they think you lied, they might use that as a reason to deny entry in the future.

doombolt 8y ago
Yes, but did not they teach you to think before talking? They are free to not let you in, but you are free to ignore any irrelevant or intimate questions.
- maxerickson 8y ago
  I don't understand your "teach you to think before talking" remark. I said your comment was orthogonal because it didn't address anything I had said in my other comment. Of course someone wanting to the enter the country will weigh their options, I'm just laying out the potential consequences, for someone that apparently had not heard of them (the other commenter, not you).
- bregma 8y ago
  Nope. Ignoring or refusing to answer the question is grounds for denying admission or being permanently denied admission.
  - doombolt 8y ago
    You can just say "no". And smile. Will be completely correct on your part.
    - coryfklein 8y ago
      > Guard: "Have you consumed weed in the last 30 days?" > You: "No" If you have consumed in the last 30 days, then your "No" response is definitely not correct.
      - doombolt 8y ago
        Yes it is correct. They have no business asking this. If a question is incorrect, you can answer whatever you like to it. Lying is only giving wrong answers on correct questions. If a person sticks their nose where it does not belong, too bad. I have rights to do any kinds of thingd to my body, and I have exactly zero obligation to disclose it, unless in strict contexts of medical help or driving.

cmrdporcupine 8y ago

You have no rights at the border.

doombolt 8y ago
Say who? Did you notify the UN about these findings?
- bregma 8y ago
  https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/3846 https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/3846
  - doombolt 8y ago
    You seriously do not think that you can override Human Rights agreements with some "congress bill", do you? For some time you might act that way, but you are trespassing. There is no right to cross the border, but there's loads of other rights, human and otherwise, that you still undeniably have while being at the border.
    - bregma 8y ago
      The legislation I linked to suspends all constitutionally-guaranteed rights "at" the border (ie within 100 miles of a border crossing, including any airports with international flights) if you are not an American citizen. The suspension of constitutional rights has been tried and upheld by a number of SCOTUS cases. There is no international body regulating any other kind of right, despite the well-meaning intention of a number of organizations.
      - doombolt 8y ago
        If you are not an American citizen you are still a citizen of some other country, which has its own obligations before its citizens to uphold their human rights, even when they cross someone other's border. This may end up ugly for the USA if they try to abuse that decision. Not every country in this world is Mexico.

xoa 8y ago

>I don't see a single reason why you can be forced to incriminate yourself. While thread didn't really get into citizenship, if you're aren't a citizen of the state in question you have no right of entry. The state has the right to ask for any information they wish and set criteria for entry as they wish. It's not a matter of "incrimination" as in you go to jail, it's a matter of obtaining permission for entry, you have no "right to remain silent". And in a democratic state I don't think that's immoral either. Knowing is in fact their business, and if it shouldn't be then the government should tell its border controls to not inquire at all. >I would happily say "no" and smile if I was you when asked about what you did in a different country that they have no business knowing. Obviously as a practical matter there are many situations where the odds of getting caught are minimal to non-existent, but I would be very cautious about casually committing perjury. Particularly in this worrying day and age of photos everywhere and ever increasing ML that can actually make sense of it and centralized datasets that governments may be able to gain access to. For example, particularly when the behavior is made legal I'd expect there to be a lot more people who post pictures of themselves using cannabis or not being concerned if someone else in the picture is because of course it's legal. Combine with spreading facial recognition and person tagging on places like Facebook and advertising (since it's legalized) that will be actively and legally interested in "is so-and-so a user so we can sell them related products" and someone could quite easily end up in a database saying "confirmed to use cannabis" without ever knowing. There are many times where "the coverup is worse then the crime" is quite true, and something that would merely get you politely or not so politely turned away would turn into a serious crime by lying about it. You can't know when an authority is asking you something out of actual interest vs a question they know the answer to already just to test you. Honesty and political pressure seems better in this specific case given that it's not like there isn't already a major legalization movement in the US too. Canada is an extremely important business partner and source of tourism and ally. If enough Canadians were denied entry over this then even under this administration pressure to simply change the rules to ignore it would be very high. If not under this one then when the Democrats retake control.

VLM 8y ago
"if you're aren't a citizen of the state in question you have no right of entry." There's a huge racial component. Essentially all of this "you're not allowed to" talk is strictly for white people only.

monkeynotes 8y ago

You have very few rights at a border. Almost any border, not just the US. A border is very much like a no-man's land where the law of the country you are entering or leaving is suspended. You can be held, searched without cause, refused entry at a guard's discretion (no reason is needed), and so on. Arguing your 'rights' at a border is one very good way to be seen as cause to get secondary screening and perhaps refusal of entry. And they are pretty good at detecting if you are lying - lots and lots of training there, you'd be surprised how easily unprepared people give themselves away in even the most simple lies.