4 ms·

The authority to conduct such searches should simply be removed. Border searches are nominally for the purpose of preventing the importation of something that's

by Zak 8y ago

The authority to conduct such searches should simply be removed. Border searches are nominally for the purpose of preventing the importation of something that's illegal to import, but it's trivial to transfer information that's illegal to import (e.g. child pornography) over the internet instead.

laken 8y ago
Border searches are nominally for the purpose of preventing the importation of something that's illegal to import _You_ can be illegal to import if you don't have authorization to work/visit/marry/etc. with your visa. Generally, that's what these phone searches are for -- if they think you're lying about the reason why you're visiting, they will search your phone's messages quite often. You see it all the time on the US CBP television program (can be found on Netflix).
- dawnerd 8y ago
  Suggested that show on here as well. The Canada and Australia variants are also a good watch.
- Zak 8y ago
  That's at least more realistically connected to a legitimate government purpose. It seems hugely invasive to be doing without a court order though.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    Lots of people seem to believe that non-nationals aren't owed due process, rights, or even access to their own children.
    - labster 8y ago
      Lots of people seem to believe that non-nationals having children is the fundamental problem. We should all strive to ignore these people.
- projectramo 8y ago
  This would seem more plausible if the searches were only restricted to people who only had single intent visas. Is that the case? I haven't seen the program but it seems hard to believe that enough people would have a clear message about their intent in their email to make this program worth it. You'd have to go through 1000s of regular people to find the one odd person who contradicted themselves in an email. "Don't worry bud. I am pretending to go as a tourist but will actually look for a job and then apply for a work visa! haha!"
  - woolvalley 8y ago
    You don't have to be secret about that since it's legal AFAIK. I've done it myself. Go in on a visa waiver for an interview, go back to my home coutry and have the company apply for the visa afterwards. I told them all of this upfront with an interview email print off.
  - laken 8y ago
    They don't right off the bat search your phone. Rather it's if the questions they ask don't match up exactly, or you mention other red flags. Canada and a few other countries do it too. It's not forced, as if you decline, you'll just be denied entry. You could consider that forced, but at that point, the officer has already decided that he doesn't believe you, and you're not entering the US until you can prove it. It's actually very common for people to come in on a tourist visa and find work. They figure out if you're likely to do that when they ask "what do you do for a living?," "do you have any family in the US," "how much money do you currently have access to?," or if you're staying for longer than they deem reasonable, like a 90 day vacation with $1000 in your bank account. If they don't believe your answers, they ask for proof, like a return ticket, or possibly your text messages/emails. They can call contacts that you said you were going to visit too. The show has shown a few successful findings from emails, people with emails from clients in the US arranging in-person visits (regarding contractors who can't work in the US) are common. As are people trying to permanently immigrate illegally, as they talk with their family in the US their plans via SMS. I'm not trying to argue for this practice, and I'm all for making borders less closed off and open. I'm just saying the justification given by the government for it. Especially since the current administration is hard-set on stopping illegal immigration, and the majority of illegal immigrants actually come here legally, and overstay and work illegally.
gammateam 8y ago
Exactly, something can be constitutional while nobody practices it. Eugenics being a good example. Supreme Court upheld it 100 years ago, no constitutional amendment or ongoing fight with "two camps", people just stopped. State laws changed, licensing organizations stopped supporting it. In this case, President could unilaterally tell the Border Patrol to not do it. Congress could make consequences.
- avar 8y ago
  Eugenics is still practiced in developed countries today. It just became opt-in, e.g. screening pregnant women for downs syndrome, which is standard procedure: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/down-syndrome/diagnosis-treatment/drc-20355983 https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/down-syndrome... Edit: I'm not saying that's comparable to practices called "eugenics" in the 1st half of the 20th century. Just narrowly responding to "people just stopped [the practice of eugenics]". The Wikipedia article on the subject agrees with this usage of the word, "practices that [aim to] improv[e] the genetic quality of a human population"[1]. There's also the whole topic of "designer babies" which has also been called "new eugenics"[2]. This is admittedly way off-topic from the original discussion. I just thought it was an interesting side-note. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_reproductive_technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_reproductive_technolo...
  - bad_user 8y ago
    > screening pregnant women for downs syndrome That’s not related to eugenics.
    - thaumasiotes 8y ago
      Detecting and aborting low-quality babies isn't related to eugenics?
      - Retric 8y ago
        First detecting often does not result in abortion, let alone mandatory abortion or sterilization by the state. Eugenics also generally focused on sterilization vs termination, with a focus on long term changes in the human population. And sterilization is only relevant for people likely to reproduce so the elderly and people with Down syndrome are irrelevant from a eugenics standpoint. Finally, small scale things like prescreening sperm donors is not going to make a meaningful difference to the overall population. For eugenics to have a meaningful impact the idea was to manage the overall population at scale. It’s a more insidious idea than often portrayed in a modern context because the original idea has become anathema.

by Zak 8y ago

laken 8y ago

Border searches are nominally for the purpose of preventing the importation of something that's illegal to import _You_ can be illegal to import if you don't have authorization to work/visit/marry/etc. with your visa. Generally, that's what these phone searches are for -- if they think you're lying about the reason why you're visiting, they will search your phone's messages quite often. You see it all the time on the US CBP television program (can be found on Netflix).

dawnerd 8y ago
Suggested that show on here as well. The Canada and Australia variants are also a good watch.
Zak 8y ago
That's at least more realistically connected to a legitimate government purpose. It seems hugely invasive to be doing without a court order though.
- pjc50 8y ago
  Lots of people seem to believe that non-nationals aren't owed due process, rights, or even access to their own children.
  - labster 8y ago
    Lots of people seem to believe that non-nationals having children is the fundamental problem. We should all strive to ignore these people.
projectramo 8y ago
This would seem more plausible if the searches were only restricted to people who only had single intent visas. Is that the case? I haven't seen the program but it seems hard to believe that enough people would have a clear message about their intent in their email to make this program worth it. You'd have to go through 1000s of regular people to find the one odd person who contradicted themselves in an email. "Don't worry bud. I am pretending to go as a tourist but will actually look for a job and then apply for a work visa! haha!"
- woolvalley 8y ago
  You don't have to be secret about that since it's legal AFAIK. I've done it myself. Go in on a visa waiver for an interview, go back to my home coutry and have the company apply for the visa afterwards. I told them all of this upfront with an interview email print off.
- laken 8y ago
  They don't right off the bat search your phone. Rather it's if the questions they ask don't match up exactly, or you mention other red flags. Canada and a few other countries do it too. It's not forced, as if you decline, you'll just be denied entry. You could consider that forced, but at that point, the officer has already decided that he doesn't believe you, and you're not entering the US until you can prove it. It's actually very common for people to come in on a tourist visa and find work. They figure out if you're likely to do that when they ask "what do you do for a living?," "do you have any family in the US," "how much money do you currently have access to?," or if you're staying for longer than they deem reasonable, like a 90 day vacation with $1000 in your bank account. If they don't believe your answers, they ask for proof, like a return ticket, or possibly your text messages/emails. They can call contacts that you said you were going to visit too. The show has shown a few successful findings from emails, people with emails from clients in the US arranging in-person visits (regarding contractors who can't work in the US) are common. As are people trying to permanently immigrate illegally, as they talk with their family in the US their plans via SMS. I'm not trying to argue for this practice, and I'm all for making borders less closed off and open. I'm just saying the justification given by the government for it. Especially since the current administration is hard-set on stopping illegal immigration, and the majority of illegal immigrants actually come here legally, and overstay and work illegally.

gammateam 8y ago

Exactly, something can be constitutional while nobody practices it. Eugenics being a good example. Supreme Court upheld it 100 years ago, no constitutional amendment or ongoing fight with "two camps", people just stopped. State laws changed, licensing organizations stopped supporting it. In this case, President could unilaterally tell the Border Patrol to not do it. Congress could make consequences.

avar 8y ago
Eugenics is still practiced in developed countries today. It just became opt-in, e.g. screening pregnant women for downs syndrome, which is standard procedure: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/down-syndrome/diagnosis-treatment/drc-20355983 https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/down-syndrome... Edit: I'm not saying that's comparable to practices called "eugenics" in the 1st half of the 20th century. Just narrowly responding to "people just stopped [the practice of eugenics]". The Wikipedia article on the subject agrees with this usage of the word, "practices that [aim to] improv[e] the genetic quality of a human population"[1]. There's also the whole topic of "designer babies" which has also been called "new eugenics"[2]. This is admittedly way off-topic from the original discussion. I just thought it was an interesting side-note. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_reproductive_technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_reproductive_technolo...
- bad_user 8y ago
  > screening pregnant women for downs syndrome That’s not related to eugenics.
  - thaumasiotes 8y ago
    Detecting and aborting low-quality babies isn't related to eugenics?
    - Retric 8y ago
      First detecting often does not result in abortion, let alone mandatory abortion or sterilization by the state. Eugenics also generally focused on sterilization vs termination, with a focus on long term changes in the human population. And sterilization is only relevant for people likely to reproduce so the elderly and people with Down syndrome are irrelevant from a eugenics standpoint. Finally, small scale things like prescreening sperm donors is not going to make a meaningful difference to the overall population. For eugenics to have a meaningful impact the idea was to manage the overall population at scale. It’s a more insidious idea than often portrayed in a modern context because the original idea has become anathema.