3 ms·
What I find more egregious is, if this somehow sticks, non-USA citizens are still not protected from these invasive searches. This should be a human rights issu
by ASalazarMX 2y ago
What I find more egregious is, if this somehow sticks, non-USA citizens are still not protected from these invasive searches. This should be a human rights issue, not a local law.
- parineum 2y agoNon-citizens don't have a right to cross the border.
- anal_reactor 2y agoYeah but it doesn't mean that anal cavity search is necessary
- casey2 2y agoAs opposed to a cavity search in the mouth? They aren't dentists.
- michaelcampbell 2y agoGiven your username, this seems an especially sensitive topic for you. In what part of the article or thread to which you commented asserted a "necessary" anal cavity search?
- belter 2y agoMake an account...Wait 4 months for the correct subject to come along....
- rusticpenn 2y agoVisa holders?
- ASalazarMX 2y agoIf they have a visa, of course they have the right.
- yessenzhar 2y agoIn the US visa does not give you right to enter. It gives you the right to show up in front of the CBP officer [1]. Edit: add source 1. https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/visa-waiver-program/requirements-immigrant-and-nonimmigrant-visas https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/visa-waive...
- account42 2y agoOf course not but they should still be protected when they seek permission to do so. Perhaps more countries need to enact symmetrical immigration rules where US citizens are subject to the same bs that the US subjects their citizens to. Then again, US citizens seem to be unbothered by the five eyes arrangement where the US cannot spy on their own citizens but they can politely ask their allies to do so so maybe this wouldn't get them to see the problem. Still would be fair though.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]