3 ms·

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/europe-immigration-refugees-smartphone-metadata-deportations https://www.wired.co.uk/article/europe-immigration-refugees-... “I

by refurb 3y ago

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/europe-immigration-refugees-smartphone-metadata-deportations https://www.wired.co.uk/article/europe-immigration-refugees-... “In 2017 both Germany and Denmark expanded laws that enabled immigration officials to extract data from asylum seekers’ phones. Similar legislation has been proposed in Belgium and Austria, while the UK and Norway have been searching asylum seekers’ devices for years.”

jltsiren 3y ago
Note that the powers were given to immigration officials, not border officials. Those people are bureaucrats working for the local equivalent of USCIS.
jacquesm 3y ago
Border officials != immigration officials, asylum seeker != all people crossing a border.
- refurb 3y ago
  I was responding to “the EU is not like the US where foreigners have the same rights as citizens”. Whether it’s immigration or border officials is irrelevant to that comment.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    No, it is very relevant and if you don't understand why I wonder why you would bother to comment in the first place.
    - refurb 3y ago
      Huh? My comment directly disproves this claim I replied to. “However, border officials (in the EU) do not have substantially wider powers at the border than the police have inside the country. You don't lose your constitutional rights just because you happen to be a non-citizen trying to enter the country illegally with the intention to commit crime.” Clearly asylum seekers in the EU do not have the same rights as EU citizens. Hence, my response was directly relevant.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        No, you are conflating the immigration process (which is an attempt by an individual to obtain the same rights that citizens have whilst in the country) with the crossing of a border (which is a much simpler process and is usually handled right at the border). The two are completely disjoint. The article deals with border crossings, not with the immigration process as such, though usually if you want to immigrate you first have to cross a border. This is why the United States is so picky about people that start their immigration process once they are already inside the United States. They would much prefer you to start that process from without so that you can be stopped and refused entry at the border. Doing that later - for instance, through deportation - is much harder. Asylum seekers anywhere do not have the same rights as the citizens of that particular country or immigration area: if they did we wouldn't call them asylum seekers. Asylum seekers are simply a special class of immigrants for whom special processes and documentation requirements may apply and who may have extra rights based on their asylum seeking status. There are whole bodies of law around this theme. Finally: the EU doesn't have a constitution. So you can't directly compare the EU situation to the United States one anyway, and from both a border crossing and immigration perspective the two are vastly different. The thing you are referring to is that specifically undocumented asylum seekers (of which there are many) can have their phones searched to ensure that their story matches. You can agree or not with that policy (personally I'm conflicted about it, I can see both sides here) but that isn't anything at all like the border guards being allowed to search any phone they think is interesting.
        refurb 3y ago
        I'm so confused. My response was not specific to border crossing or the immigration process, it was the broader claim: "The US also has unusually large differences between the rights of citizens and non-citizens. In the European way of thinking, most rights are human rights. Citizens only enjoy a limited set of additional rights." So I posted a link to an article showing that, no, the EU is not that different than the US in having a different set of rights for citizens and non-citizen. Your comment about "Asylum seekers anywhere do not have the same rights as the citizens of that particular country or immigration area", which basically agrees with the point I was trying to make.

by refurb 3y ago

jltsiren 3y ago

Note that the powers were given to immigration officials, not border officials. Those people are bureaucrats working for the local equivalent of USCIS.

jacquesm 3y ago

Border officials != immigration officials, asylum seeker != all people crossing a border.

refurb 3y ago
I was responding to “the EU is not like the US where foreigners have the same rights as citizens”. Whether it’s immigration or border officials is irrelevant to that comment.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  No, it is very relevant and if you don't understand why I wonder why you would bother to comment in the first place.
  - refurb 3y ago
    Huh? My comment directly disproves this claim I replied to. “However, border officials (in the EU) do not have substantially wider powers at the border than the police have inside the country. You don't lose your constitutional rights just because you happen to be a non-citizen trying to enter the country illegally with the intention to commit crime.” Clearly asylum seekers in the EU do not have the same rights as EU citizens. Hence, my response was directly relevant.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      No, you are conflating the immigration process (which is an attempt by an individual to obtain the same rights that citizens have whilst in the country) with the crossing of a border (which is a much simpler process and is usually handled right at the border). The two are completely disjoint. The article deals with border crossings, not with the immigration process as such, though usually if you want to immigrate you first have to cross a border. This is why the United States is so picky about people that start their immigration process once they are already inside the United States. They would much prefer you to start that process from without so that you can be stopped and refused entry at the border. Doing that later - for instance, through deportation - is much harder. Asylum seekers anywhere do not have the same rights as the citizens of that particular country or immigration area: if they did we wouldn't call them asylum seekers. Asylum seekers are simply a special class of immigrants for whom special processes and documentation requirements may apply and who may have extra rights based on their asylum seeking status. There are whole bodies of law around this theme. Finally: the EU doesn't have a constitution. So you can't directly compare the EU situation to the United States one anyway, and from both a border crossing and immigration perspective the two are vastly different. The thing you are referring to is that specifically undocumented asylum seekers (of which there are many) can have their phones searched to ensure that their story matches. You can agree or not with that policy (personally I'm conflicted about it, I can see both sides here) but that isn't anything at all like the border guards being allowed to search any phone they think is interesting.
      - refurb 3y ago
        I'm so confused. My response was not specific to border crossing or the immigration process, it was the broader claim: "The US also has unusually large differences between the rights of citizens and non-citizens. In the European way of thinking, most rights are human rights. Citizens only enjoy a limited set of additional rights." So I posted a link to an article showing that, no, the EU is not that different than the US in having a different set of rights for citizens and non-citizen. Your comment about "Asylum seekers anywhere do not have the same rights as the citizens of that particular country or immigration area", which basically agrees with the point I was trying to make.