3 ms·
> The fourth amendment is still a thing, and it protects non-citizens and citizens alike. This sounds like someone who has never lived in the US as a visa hold
by ridaj 7y ago
> The fourth amendment is still a thing, and it protects non-citizens and citizens alike.
This sounds like someone who has never lived in the US as a visa holder. If you are living in the US on a visa or even on a green card, CBP agents have a shocking amount of discretion to detain.
There are many other areas of the immigration system where the standard of due process is significantly different from what many Americans think their country stands for, but regarding the Fourth Amendment specifically: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception
- ajross 7y ago> If you are living in the US on a visa or even on a green card, CBP agents have a shocking amount of discretion to detain. My comment you replied to wasn't about ability to detain or the definitions of "probable cause" in immigration law, it was about the specific policy at issue which is demanding social media IDs so they can issue a warrant to facebook or whoever. And specifically that it was being likened to a surveillance program, when it clearly is not. All I'm saying is that if you want people to take your anger seriously (and I do! I'm on your side here!) you need to argue specifics and not just mash vote buttons based on your tribal affiliation. This policy is not just like China's social credit system. There are other policies that are bad. Those aren't arguments against that point.