6 ms·

I think in these situations your absolute best bet is fawning compliance. Ask precisely how high they want you to jump. Perhaps your friendly smiling Yes-Sir-N

I think in these situations your absolute best bet is fawning compliance. Ask precisely how high they want you to jump. Perhaps your friendly smiling Yes-Sir-No-Sir-3-bags-Full-Sir act might just be enough to let you get on your way without anything else happening apart from a stamp in your passport. Even the slightest hint of defiance or surliness from you to a border guard/policeman/etc - potentially at the end of a long shift, tired, angry, pissed-off or whatever - and you're straight away hugely more likely to have a bad day. Finding strategies to "beat the system" will, I think, just be a shortcut to some other punishment/crime/taken-out-of-sight-and-given-a-proper-kicking-oh-they-resisted-and-went-for-my-gun/etc as this person found out the hard way by trying to be difficult. I genuinely don't think there is a "get out of jail free card" or magic incantation you can say to get out of these situations apart from just smiling and being polite and not being a dick - if you get into a "who can be more annoying" competition, then the border guards/police will always win since they hold all the cards and will happily ruin your day/holiday/meetings etc by detaining you (its their job to do this after all) There have been cases very recently in the US where the authority figures down dealing with the public are evidently in a very defensive, aggressive "us-vs-them" mindset, with an itchy trigger-finger to go with it. Don't be the person on the receiving end of a cop seeing-red because you're being a jerk. The house always wins.

piltdownman 3mo ago
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever"
- voakbasda 3mo ago
  I will ask this here again: At what point did the German people find it morally acceptable to start killing Nazis? At what point will the US stop accepting the boot and act to remove the tyranny stamping on our collective face?
  - profunctor 3mo ago
    Did they ever?
  - Xirdus 3mo ago
    > At what point did the German people find it morally acceptable to start killing Nazis? Late 1960s at the very earliest, and it's only been a tiny minority.
  - radu_floricica 3mo ago
    If it helps, the nazis themselves probably asked this very question before they started killing ... whatever the contemporary term for nazis was back than.
    - inigyou 3mo ago
      I don't think there was a label back then that was used the ways "Nazis" is used today.
      - radu_floricica 3mo ago
        Umbrella term for political opponents? Those always exist. Some variation of "jew puppet", if I had to guess.
        inigyou 3mo ago
        Nazis isn't an umbrella term for political opponents
  - inigyou 3mo ago
    It wasn't until over a decade after the war that most Germans started to accept and internalize that the Nazis were bad guys. There's also another war where the Germans think they're the good guys because it hasn't been a decade yet.
  - ndiddy 3mo ago
    > At what point did the German people find it morally acceptable to start killing Nazis? Functionally never, after the war the Allies handed "denazification" over to the West Germans to handle themselves in 1946. They then let basically everybody off and lots of former Nazis were let back into power. By 1957, 77% of the West German justice ministry was comprised of former Nazis, which was actually a higher percentage than the amount of Nazis in the ministry during Hitler's reign. The Soviets were more strict with the denazification of East Germany, but many former Nazis were still able to retain high positions in government and society.
wat10000 3mo ago
It's best to do that for things they have the right to do. Trying to resist being questioned or having your stuff searched is a fool's errand. They'll make it happen one way or another. But I'd never unlock my phone for US immigration. That's my whole life on there, and they don't have the right to compel me to unlock it. Even there, be polite. You can say "no" politely. Where this guy went wrong was actively wiping his phone. That's no good. What you do is put your phone in its most secure state (generally powering it off) before you reach the immigration desk, and then if they seize it, you have to trust its security to keep them from getting into it.
- MetroWind 3mo ago
  They can just ask you to unlock it for them.
  - wat10000 3mo ago
    They can ask, yes. And I can refuse. They can’t detain me more than temporarily, and they can’t prevent me from entering the country.
    - gck1 3mo ago
      They can still make your life very difficult. They could throw you in jail for "obstructing investigation" or something similar. Not in US, but had my phone seized by authorities and was asked to unlock it. I'm walking free, but I think what really saved me is that I genuinely complied with investigation and the only place where I drew the line was me giving away my password. If I used my right to remain silent AND not give away the password, I'd probably be charged with something. I'm sure its very similar in many countries, including US.
      - wat10000 3mo ago
        It's extremely unlikely they'd jail me for obstruction. They wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on and they know it. From CBP themselves: "If a traveler being admitted as a U.S. citizen does not present their device in a condition that allows for examination, the U.S. citizen traveler will not be denied entry into the United States based on CBP’s inability to complete an inspection of their device. However, as noted above, their device may be subject to exclusion, detention, or other appropriate action or disposition." Worst case would be losing the phone, which is a tradeoff I'm willing to make.
EvanAnderson 3mo ago
> I genuinely don't think there is a "get out of jail free card" ... Being rich and politically connected would probably do it.
- andrewflnr 3mo ago
  That's not free. It simply means you can afford to buy the very expensive get-out-of-jail cards.
nxc18 3mo ago
It’s weird how few people understand that just being courteous/polite eases most encounters considerably. Absolutely astonishing seeing people try the “I’m going to be as annoying as humanly possible” to the guy with the gun with the “my YouTube lawyer says I can” defense. You don’t want to have to defend your civil rights in court. This goes doubly when at immigration where you basically don’t have rights. This guidance also applies to: bank tellers, call takers, baristas, waiters, other people standing in line with you, the bus driver, your mom, the neighbors upstairs, the raccoon across the street, …
- lgl 3mo ago
  Politeness is the correct behavior on most walks of social life, but on this case it's a bit like the "turn the other cheek" approach, but in this case, it's turn the other butt-cheek because you're being effed in the A. Also, you do have rights, but don't seem to really care a lot about them since, in the face of unlawful and oppressive demands by overreaching authorities, your suggestion is to be courteous with the oppressors for some reason. "Land of the free, home of the brave"
fn-mote 3mo ago
This comment irritates me. On one hand, I agree with it. On the other: how is it not just a version of “if you have nothing to hide”? At some point, you should fight for what you consider basic human rights. Where you draw the line and how you fight is up to you. It sounds like your attitude is to comply with whatever the authorities want. It seems like a completely innocent person is the best one to push back on authoritarian overreach. Am I misunderstanding something here?
- dqv 3mo ago
  No, you're not. And idk how people don't understand how "politeness" gets weaponized. This video is an example https://youtu.be/amSIcL3V5C4?is=hmlOx2t7dHg5j-lJ https://youtu.be/amSIcL3V5C4?is=hmlOx2t7dHg5j-lJ Here, the only way this guy could've had a "good attitude" is if he had let the lady do whatever she wants with his service dog. This behavior is very common in situations where people feel entitled to something, but know the counterparty has the absolute right to refuse to cooperate. No matter how politely that information is conveyed, it's "rude" because they're being denied something they want. The police don't like my attitude when I firmly say "no, sorry, I won't be unlocking my phone. I will only do what I am legally required to do." People have a hard time understanding this because they are under the impression that they know how to be polite because they do what they think is polite. They are unaware that politeness is subjective and slippery and that people can and do use it to manipulate others into doing things they're uncomfortable with.
- jjkaczor 3mo ago
  [Am in agreement with being conflicted about this advice] In a normal functioning society with law enforcement that is actually accountable to it's citizens, yes - polite pushback will likely have no horrible consequences. In a country that is either already in the depths of fascism/authoritarianism - or rapidly heading there, fighting for rights is seen as a "red flag". See also: "On Tyranny" (Timothy Snyder) and "Do Not Obey in Advance".
- mattlondon 3mo ago
  There is a time and a place. If someone jumps out at you in a dark alley and they have a weapon and they ask for your wallet, what are you going to do? Swallow your pride and give it to them, or willingly enter into a high-risk and highly-imbalanced scenario where you are at a huge disadvantage against the other person for who this is essentially zero-risk, something they do multiple times a day, and they have nothing to lose from it either way. Sure it is legally wrong and you can stand up for your legal rights in that situation, but it's a high-risk strategy to take. Is that particular moment, that exact moment in time, the right time to take a stand for the rule of law? Or perhaps there are other things you can do after the fact? Up to you. Someone stabbing you and leaving your corpse in an alley is obviously pretty bad, but getting on a no-fly list for life/prison time/beaten senseless in a backroom in some random airport in a country where you are a foreigner and don't know the language or law/etc because you wanted to prove some point to a border guard at some airport somewhere and were generally being a jerk is no joke either.

piltdownman 3mo ago

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever"

voakbasda 3mo ago
I will ask this here again: At what point did the German people find it morally acceptable to start killing Nazis? At what point will the US stop accepting the boot and act to remove the tyranny stamping on our collective face?
- profunctor 3mo ago
  Did they ever?
- Xirdus 3mo ago
  > At what point did the German people find it morally acceptable to start killing Nazis? Late 1960s at the very earliest, and it's only been a tiny minority.
- radu_floricica 3mo ago
  If it helps, the nazis themselves probably asked this very question before they started killing ... whatever the contemporary term for nazis was back than.
  - inigyou 3mo ago
    I don't think there was a label back then that was used the ways "Nazis" is used today.
    - radu_floricica 3mo ago
      Umbrella term for political opponents? Those always exist. Some variation of "jew puppet", if I had to guess.
      - inigyou 3mo ago
        Nazis isn't an umbrella term for political opponents
- inigyou 3mo ago
  It wasn't until over a decade after the war that most Germans started to accept and internalize that the Nazis were bad guys. There's also another war where the Germans think they're the good guys because it hasn't been a decade yet.
- ndiddy 3mo ago
  > At what point did the German people find it morally acceptable to start killing Nazis? Functionally never, after the war the Allies handed "denazification" over to the West Germans to handle themselves in 1946. They then let basically everybody off and lots of former Nazis were let back into power. By 1957, 77% of the West German justice ministry was comprised of former Nazis, which was actually a higher percentage than the amount of Nazis in the ministry during Hitler's reign. The Soviets were more strict with the denazification of East Germany, but many former Nazis were still able to retain high positions in government and society.

wat10000 3mo ago

It's best to do that for things they have the right to do. Trying to resist being questioned or having your stuff searched is a fool's errand. They'll make it happen one way or another. But I'd never unlock my phone for US immigration. That's my whole life on there, and they don't have the right to compel me to unlock it. Even there, be polite. You can say "no" politely. Where this guy went wrong was actively wiping his phone. That's no good. What you do is put your phone in its most secure state (generally powering it off) before you reach the immigration desk, and then if they seize it, you have to trust its security to keep them from getting into it.

MetroWind 3mo ago
They can just ask you to unlock it for them.
- wat10000 3mo ago
  They can ask, yes. And I can refuse. They can’t detain me more than temporarily, and they can’t prevent me from entering the country.
  - gck1 3mo ago
    They can still make your life very difficult. They could throw you in jail for "obstructing investigation" or something similar. Not in US, but had my phone seized by authorities and was asked to unlock it. I'm walking free, but I think what really saved me is that I genuinely complied with investigation and the only place where I drew the line was me giving away my password. If I used my right to remain silent AND not give away the password, I'd probably be charged with something. I'm sure its very similar in many countries, including US.
    - wat10000 3mo ago
      It's extremely unlikely they'd jail me for obstruction. They wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on and they know it. From CBP themselves: "If a traveler being admitted as a U.S. citizen does not present their device in a condition that allows for examination, the U.S. citizen traveler will not be denied entry into the United States based on CBP’s inability to complete an inspection of their device. However, as noted above, their device may be subject to exclusion, detention, or other appropriate action or disposition." Worst case would be losing the phone, which is a tradeoff I'm willing to make.

EvanAnderson 3mo ago

> I genuinely don't think there is a "get out of jail free card" ... Being rich and politically connected would probably do it.

andrewflnr 3mo ago
That's not free. It simply means you can afford to buy the very expensive get-out-of-jail cards.

nxc18 3mo ago

It’s weird how few people understand that just being courteous/polite eases most encounters considerably. Absolutely astonishing seeing people try the “I’m going to be as annoying as humanly possible” to the guy with the gun with the “my YouTube lawyer says I can” defense. You don’t want to have to defend your civil rights in court. This goes doubly when at immigration where you basically don’t have rights. This guidance also applies to: bank tellers, call takers, baristas, waiters, other people standing in line with you, the bus driver, your mom, the neighbors upstairs, the raccoon across the street, …

lgl 3mo ago
Politeness is the correct behavior on most walks of social life, but on this case it's a bit like the "turn the other cheek" approach, but in this case, it's turn the other butt-cheek because you're being effed in the A. Also, you do have rights, but don't seem to really care a lot about them since, in the face of unlawful and oppressive demands by overreaching authorities, your suggestion is to be courteous with the oppressors for some reason. "Land of the free, home of the brave"

fn-mote 3mo ago

This comment irritates me. On one hand, I agree with it. On the other: how is it not just a version of “if you have nothing to hide”? At some point, you should fight for what you consider basic human rights. Where you draw the line and how you fight is up to you. It sounds like your attitude is to comply with whatever the authorities want. It seems like a completely innocent person is the best one to push back on authoritarian overreach. Am I misunderstanding something here?

dqv 3mo ago
No, you're not. And idk how people don't understand how "politeness" gets weaponized. This video is an example https://youtu.be/amSIcL3V5C4?is=hmlOx2t7dHg5j-lJ https://youtu.be/amSIcL3V5C4?is=hmlOx2t7dHg5j-lJ Here, the only way this guy could've had a "good attitude" is if he had let the lady do whatever she wants with his service dog. This behavior is very common in situations where people feel entitled to something, but know the counterparty has the absolute right to refuse to cooperate. No matter how politely that information is conveyed, it's "rude" because they're being denied something they want. The police don't like my attitude when I firmly say "no, sorry, I won't be unlocking my phone. I will only do what I am legally required to do." People have a hard time understanding this because they are under the impression that they know how to be polite because they do what they think is polite. They are unaware that politeness is subjective and slippery and that people can and do use it to manipulate others into doing things they're uncomfortable with.
jjkaczor 3mo ago
[Am in agreement with being conflicted about this advice] In a normal functioning society with law enforcement that is actually accountable to it's citizens, yes - polite pushback will likely have no horrible consequences. In a country that is either already in the depths of fascism/authoritarianism - or rapidly heading there, fighting for rights is seen as a "red flag". See also: "On Tyranny" (Timothy Snyder) and "Do Not Obey in Advance".
mattlondon 3mo ago
There is a time and a place. If someone jumps out at you in a dark alley and they have a weapon and they ask for your wallet, what are you going to do? Swallow your pride and give it to them, or willingly enter into a high-risk and highly-imbalanced scenario where you are at a huge disadvantage against the other person for who this is essentially zero-risk, something they do multiple times a day, and they have nothing to lose from it either way. Sure it is legally wrong and you can stand up for your legal rights in that situation, but it's a high-risk strategy to take. Is that particular moment, that exact moment in time, the right time to take a stand for the rule of law? Or perhaps there are other things you can do after the fact? Up to you. Someone stabbing you and leaving your corpse in an alley is obviously pretty bad, but getting on a no-fly list for life/prison time/beaten senseless in a backroom in some random airport in a country where you are a foreigner and don't know the language or law/etc because you wanted to prove some point to a border guard at some airport somewhere and were generally being a jerk is no joke either.