6 ms·

You are within your rights to say no but if you say no, almost certainly CBP will assume that you are hiding something and deny you admission.

by proberts 10mo ago

ToucanLoucan 10mo ago
[flagged]
- flanked-evergl 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - wrs 10mo ago
    Who said anything about a “right to enter”? This is just about not massively invading visitors’ privacy for no good reason. Of course, if you just don’t want anyone with intelligence or dignity to visit the country, this is great policy.
    - zahlman 10mo ago
      As explained upthread, > You are within your rights to say no Given that you don't have a right to enter, if you say no (which you are within your rights to do), and you are denied entry, then nothing wrong has happened. If you believe that they shouldn't make entry conditional on something, then you are asserting a right to enter. That's what "right" means.
      - tempfile 10mo ago
        This argument is absurd. If someone comes up to me and asks for food, I am not obliged to give it to them. If I say to them, "I will give you food, on the condition that I can punch you in the face", and they decline to be punched in the face, do you really believe "nothing wrong has happened"? That I, applying an unethical condition, did nothing wrong? If someone else says "You must not make punching someone in the face a precondition of giving them food", does that create a "right to food"? Of course not.
        xp84 10mo ago
        I'm not who you're arguing with, but I'd also take the opposite side of that argument. Your analogy does seem workable, though - let's examine: > If someone comes up to me and asks for food, I am not obliged to give it to them. Yes! 100% agree. They probably have a right to ask for food in countries that protect free speech, but they have no right to have requests fulfilled. > If I say to them, "I will give you food, on the condition that I can punch you in the face", and they decline to be punched in the face, Sounds great. You have the right to say no. You did say no basically, but you did make a counteroffer. (This is arguably also especially true due to free speech, though that's unrelated to our points.) Your exact counteroffer doesn't seem relevant to me, it could also just be that you'll give it for $50, or $1,000,000 and nothing changes. He thinks it's a bad offer and gets none of your food. > "nothing wrong has happened"? I do think nothing wrong has happened! Is it only because you used food, which a necessity, that you think it's wrong? What if it's a PS5? Would this be ok if the asker is seeking a free PS5? Visiting a foreign country is much more like a PS5 than it is a potato. > If someone else says "You must not make punching someone in the face a precondition of giving them food", does that create a "right to food"? Of course not. That is the worst policy I could imagine since it's vague and undefined. Can one ask for a kick to the groin? An elbow to the funny bone? If you did the policymaker's job correctly you'd need to make the policy like "No one may deny a request for food/PS5s" -- that exactly creates a right to food/PS5s. Or you could make the policy "No one may deny a request for food/PS5s but one may require compensation, which may only be less than $50 in US Currency. Compensation in the form of a service or a trade may not be required." That creates a right to pay $50 or less for food/PS5s.
        tempfile 10mo ago
        [flagged]
        xp84 10mo ago
        Sorry, I don't know any LLMs that would argue politics without using their own heavy bias and getting caught up in trying to not harm people, I'm afraid you just hate my writing style. Maybe you don't like the inline quotes? idk. Also I can't imagine wasting the effort to have a bot debate people online if I don't care enough to do it myself. The whole reason we have those types of employment and public accommodation laws is a special case though. In terms of employment, we prefer this to a world where black people or women can't get jobs, because jobs are necessary, or can't enter half the establishments because people witnessed that Jim Crow was a shitty and shameful situation. And I do stipulate that that doesn't mean the same as "all women have the right to a job at my company upon demand." But why don't we also have laws criminalizing things like refusing to be friends with $SKIN_COLOR people? I think it's because it's only in those specific realms like employment and public accommodation where we have created rights. The right to shop in a place that is open to the general public is a right Black people got from a law. And the right of people to be considered for a job without regard to their membership in certain protected classes is something the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 created. There is no right of foreigners without a green card to enter in the first place - CBP can completely legally say no to anyone, so no 'counteroffer' of conditional admittance could be inappropriate. The only exception I can think of is misconduct of the officer, e.g. 'I'll admit you if you give me $10,000' or a more unsavory favor. But with that already being illegal, I don't think it is too relevant here.
    - rdtsc 10mo ago
      Not op and may not agree with them but the original comment was how I read it "...we ostensibly have rights but the exercising of rights is ...". We're talking about a non-citizen on a visitor visa and there is just simply no legal right to enter if the port of entry official don't like their answers or behavior. They can't say "you have to let me in, it's my right".
      - wrs 10mo ago
        My concern here is the behavior of the official and their bosses, not the visitor. No one has a right to politeness or professionalism from the official either, but as a citizen paying their salary, and a citizen with pride in my country, I expect it from them. “Rights” aren’t the point. I have a right to refuse entry to a police officer without a warrant, but if an officer puts me in the position of having to explicitly exercise that right, we should be disappointed in them and their chief, not me.
- drstewart 10mo ago
  Are you talking about Australia or Canada? https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/travel-voyage/edd-ean-eng.html https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/travel-voyage/edd-ean-eng.html https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/18/returning-travellers-made-to-hand-over-phones-and-passcodes-to-australian-border-force https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/18/returning-trav... Progressive utopias indeed
- Etheryte 10mo ago
  There are many contexts where this comment would apply, but border crossing is not one of them. If you're a foreigner trying to enter another country, then by definition you have less rights than natives.
- nkrisc 10mo ago
  Foreign countries have no obligation to admit you within their borders. There’s many points you could make about the United States and immigration, but I don’t think this is one of them.
  - comte7092 10mo ago
    [flagged]
    - wonderwonder 10mo ago
      He's not talking about other nations, he's talking about the US and saying if you are not a citizen of a nation, its a foreign nation to you and they have no obligation to let you in.
      - comte7092 10mo ago
        > Foreign countries have no obligation to admit you within their borders. This is obviously a general statement about any nation, comparing the US to its peers. In the context of the conversation it is clearly an argument that “we don’t have to let you in, we can require whatever we want, including trampling on your rights as an individual”, which is unamerican.
  - tempfile 10mo ago
    > Foreign countries have no obligation to admit you within their borders. That doesn't sound relevant. Nobody said that they were obliged to admit you, they complained that the reasons for declining admittance were unfair. Unless you think "no obligation to admit" means carte blanche to decline for any reason, and to treat you however they like? If so, then that is unreasonable. It is a much stronger condition than "I don't have to let you in".
    - mpweiher 10mo ago
      Yes, "no obligation to admit" means they don't have any obligation whatsoever, and that includes doing so for any reason they see fit and not having to disclose those reasons (if any) to you. It is exactly the same as "I don't have to let you in".
- tcdent 10mo ago
  There is a solution to this. You can become a US citizen.
  - jameshart 10mo ago
    * terms and conditions may apply
  - LastTrain 10mo ago
    Another option is that we can treat our guests better.
  - Izikiel43 10mo ago
    Very hard process though.
  - immibis 10mo ago
    Didn't realise it was that easy. Why don't all the illegal immigrants just do that?
    - filleduchaos 10mo ago
      It doesn't have to be easy to be factual. You simply are not owed entry into any country if you are not a citizen of that country, that is a fundamental part of what things like "citizenship" and "sovereign state" mean in the modern world.
      - immibis 10mo ago
        Ah so this is basically a meaningless platitude?
  - hn_acc1 10mo ago
    And then wonder if they'll try to take your citizenship away anyway - the exact boat I'm in. Naturalized after almost 20 years of holding a GC, because I expected trouble with this administration - and now wondering they'll try to take away my citizenship because I did it recently. I actually expected to leave and have my right to come back not dependent on GC status (which expires after 6 months), but due to family have stayed so far. by the by - I'm a citizen of that dangerous country bordering the US - Canada.
criddell 10mo ago
Can they deny you admission when you are a US citizen?
- OptionOfT 10mo ago
  They can not. Neither US Citizens or Green Card Holders can be denied entry. Sources: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/what-do-when-encountering-law-enforcement-airports-and-other-ports-entry-us https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/what-do-when-encounter... https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/know-your-rights/know-your-rights-us-airports-and-ports-entry https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/know-your-rights/know-your-r...
  - testing22321 10mo ago
    A country can not deny entry to its own citizens. They can immediately arrest you, however.
    - echoangle 10mo ago
      But not for not giving them access to your phone.
      - iancmceachern 10mo ago
        In America, Europe, etc.
      - ineedasername 10mo ago
        What the will arrest you for vs can arrest you for are very different things. Really. This isn’t cynicism, is empirical knowledge. If they want to arrest you, you’re getting arrested. They can arrest you because they can arrest you. This is the strict literal sense of can.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
  - mrguyorama 10mo ago
UncleOxidant 10mo ago
So basically bring a burner phone.

You are within your rights to say no but if you say no, almost certainly CBP will assume that you are hiding something and deny you admission.

ToucanLoucan 10mo ago

[flagged]

flanked-evergl 10mo ago
[flagged]
- wrs 10mo ago
  Who said anything about a “right to enter”? This is just about not massively invading visitors’ privacy for no good reason. Of course, if you just don’t want anyone with intelligence or dignity to visit the country, this is great policy.
  - zahlman 10mo ago
    As explained upthread, > You are within your rights to say no Given that you don't have a right to enter, if you say no (which you are within your rights to do), and you are denied entry, then nothing wrong has happened. If you believe that they shouldn't make entry conditional on something, then you are asserting a right to enter. That's what "right" means.
    - tempfile 10mo ago
      This argument is absurd. If someone comes up to me and asks for food, I am not obliged to give it to them. If I say to them, "I will give you food, on the condition that I can punch you in the face", and they decline to be punched in the face, do you really believe "nothing wrong has happened"? That I, applying an unethical condition, did nothing wrong? If someone else says "You must not make punching someone in the face a precondition of giving them food", does that create a "right to food"? Of course not.
      - xp84 10mo ago
        I'm not who you're arguing with, but I'd also take the opposite side of that argument. Your analogy does seem workable, though - let's examine: > If someone comes up to me and asks for food, I am not obliged to give it to them. Yes! 100% agree. They probably have a right to ask for food in countries that protect free speech, but they have no right to have requests fulfilled. > If I say to them, "I will give you food, on the condition that I can punch you in the face", and they decline to be punched in the face, Sounds great. You have the right to say no. You did say no basically, but you did make a counteroffer. (This is arguably also especially true due to free speech, though that's unrelated to our points.) Your exact counteroffer doesn't seem relevant to me, it could also just be that you'll give it for $50, or $1,000,000 and nothing changes. He thinks it's a bad offer and gets none of your food. > "nothing wrong has happened"? I do think nothing wrong has happened! Is it only because you used food, which a necessity, that you think it's wrong? What if it's a PS5? Would this be ok if the asker is seeking a free PS5? Visiting a foreign country is much more like a PS5 than it is a potato. > If someone else says "You must not make punching someone in the face a precondition of giving them food", does that create a "right to food"? Of course not. That is the worst policy I could imagine since it's vague and undefined. Can one ask for a kick to the groin? An elbow to the funny bone? If you did the policymaker's job correctly you'd need to make the policy like "No one may deny a request for food/PS5s" -- that exactly creates a right to food/PS5s. Or you could make the policy "No one may deny a request for food/PS5s but one may require compensation, which may only be less than $50 in US Currency. Compensation in the form of a service or a trade may not be required." That creates a right to pay $50 or less for food/PS5s.
        tempfile 10mo ago
        [flagged]
        xp84 10mo ago
        Sorry, I don't know any LLMs that would argue politics without using their own heavy bias and getting caught up in trying to not harm people, I'm afraid you just hate my writing style. Maybe you don't like the inline quotes? idk. Also I can't imagine wasting the effort to have a bot debate people online if I don't care enough to do it myself. The whole reason we have those types of employment and public accommodation laws is a special case though. In terms of employment, we prefer this to a world where black people or women can't get jobs, because jobs are necessary, or can't enter half the establishments because people witnessed that Jim Crow was a shitty and shameful situation. And I do stipulate that that doesn't mean the same as "all women have the right to a job at my company upon demand." But why don't we also have laws criminalizing things like refusing to be friends with $SKIN_COLOR people? I think it's because it's only in those specific realms like employment and public accommodation where we have created rights. The right to shop in a place that is open to the general public is a right Black people got from a law. And the right of people to be considered for a job without regard to their membership in certain protected classes is something the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 created. There is no right of foreigners without a green card to enter in the first place - CBP can completely legally say no to anyone, so no 'counteroffer' of conditional admittance could be inappropriate. The only exception I can think of is misconduct of the officer, e.g. 'I'll admit you if you give me $10,000' or a more unsavory favor. But with that already being illegal, I don't think it is too relevant here.
  - rdtsc 10mo ago
    Not op and may not agree with them but the original comment was how I read it "...we ostensibly have rights but the exercising of rights is ...". We're talking about a non-citizen on a visitor visa and there is just simply no legal right to enter if the port of entry official don't like their answers or behavior. They can't say "you have to let me in, it's my right".
    - wrs 10mo ago
      My concern here is the behavior of the official and their bosses, not the visitor. No one has a right to politeness or professionalism from the official either, but as a citizen paying their salary, and a citizen with pride in my country, I expect it from them. “Rights” aren’t the point. I have a right to refuse entry to a police officer without a warrant, but if an officer puts me in the position of having to explicitly exercise that right, we should be disappointed in them and their chief, not me.
drstewart 10mo ago
Are you talking about Australia or Canada? https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/travel-voyage/edd-ean-eng.html https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/travel-voyage/edd-ean-eng.html https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/18/returning-travellers-made-to-hand-over-phones-and-passcodes-to-australian-border-force https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/18/returning-trav... Progressive utopias indeed
Etheryte 10mo ago
There are many contexts where this comment would apply, but border crossing is not one of them. If you're a foreigner trying to enter another country, then by definition you have less rights than natives.
nkrisc 10mo ago
Foreign countries have no obligation to admit you within their borders. There’s many points you could make about the United States and immigration, but I don’t think this is one of them.
- comte7092 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - wonderwonder 10mo ago
    He's not talking about other nations, he's talking about the US and saying if you are not a citizen of a nation, its a foreign nation to you and they have no obligation to let you in.
    - comte7092 10mo ago
      > Foreign countries have no obligation to admit you within their borders. This is obviously a general statement about any nation, comparing the US to its peers. In the context of the conversation it is clearly an argument that “we don’t have to let you in, we can require whatever we want, including trampling on your rights as an individual”, which is unamerican.
- tempfile 10mo ago
  > Foreign countries have no obligation to admit you within their borders. That doesn't sound relevant. Nobody said that they were obliged to admit you, they complained that the reasons for declining admittance were unfair. Unless you think "no obligation to admit" means carte blanche to decline for any reason, and to treat you however they like? If so, then that is unreasonable. It is a much stronger condition than "I don't have to let you in".
  - mpweiher 10mo ago
    Yes, "no obligation to admit" means they don't have any obligation whatsoever, and that includes doing so for any reason they see fit and not having to disclose those reasons (if any) to you. It is exactly the same as "I don't have to let you in".
tcdent 10mo ago
There is a solution to this. You can become a US citizen.
- jameshart 10mo ago
  * terms and conditions may apply
- LastTrain 10mo ago
  Another option is that we can treat our guests better.
- Izikiel43 10mo ago
  Very hard process though.
- immibis 10mo ago
  Didn't realise it was that easy. Why don't all the illegal immigrants just do that?
  - filleduchaos 10mo ago
    It doesn't have to be easy to be factual. You simply are not owed entry into any country if you are not a citizen of that country, that is a fundamental part of what things like "citizenship" and "sovereign state" mean in the modern world.
    - immibis 10mo ago
      Ah so this is basically a meaningless platitude?
- hn_acc1 10mo ago
  And then wonder if they'll try to take your citizenship away anyway - the exact boat I'm in. Naturalized after almost 20 years of holding a GC, because I expected trouble with this administration - and now wondering they'll try to take away my citizenship because I did it recently. I actually expected to leave and have my right to come back not dependent on GC status (which expires after 6 months), but due to family have stayed so far. by the by - I'm a citizen of that dangerous country bordering the US - Canada.

criddell 10mo ago

Can they deny you admission when you are a US citizen?

OptionOfT 10mo ago
They can not. Neither US Citizens or Green Card Holders can be denied entry. Sources: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/what-do-when-encountering-law-enforcement-airports-and-other-ports-entry-us https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/what-do-when-encounter... https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/know-your-rights/know-your-rights-us-airports-and-ports-entry https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/know-your-rights/know-your-r...
- testing22321 10mo ago
  A country can not deny entry to its own citizens. They can immediately arrest you, however.
  - echoangle 10mo ago
    But not for not giving them access to your phone.
    - iancmceachern 10mo ago
      In America, Europe, etc.
    - ineedasername 10mo ago
      What the will arrest you for vs can arrest you for are very different things. Really. This isn’t cynicism, is empirical knowledge. If they want to arrest you, you’re getting arrested. They can arrest you because they can arrest you. This is the strict literal sense of can.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- mrguyorama 10mo ago

UncleOxidant 10mo ago

So basically bring a burner phone.