My U.S. Border Nightmare • Hacker News Board

Re: My U.S. Border Nightmare

#211

Post by choros12 » Fri, Feb 03, 2012, 1:32 PM UTC

DrJokepu wrote: post #192

gst wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding your last comment: Had the same experience in Europe. I'm Austrian citizen, but live in the US. During my last flight back to Austria (via Amsterdam), the border-agent in Amsterdam asked me quite in detail about why I'm entering the European Union. Wonder what would have happened if I had refused to answer.

As long as you have a EU (Schengen) passport, another EU (Schengen) member state can only deny your entry if its authorities can prove that you pose a "genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat". The burden of proof is on them. It's very likely that even if you have refused to answer eventually the border control officer would have granted you entry.

"genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat". Reading: they can stop anyone for any reason anytime at any place. EU is not much better than US. I hold Polish, German and US citizenships. Europe is actually worse because they think that they treat people better when in reality they are much worse it just doesn't get as much attention because it is not US.

Re: My U.S. Border Nightmare

#212

Post by RexRollman » Fri, Feb 03, 2012, 1:37 PM UTC

toyg wrote: post #209

potatolicious wrote: post #8

Author seems a bit naive about international sovereignty, though I suppose one can't exactly blame him for it. I grew up in Vancouver, a stone's throw from the border, so I suppose I take it for granted that we all learn very early on that CBP is a wretched hive of scum and villainy, and everyone knows someone who was chewed out, berated, and generally treated like a criminal by them. Seeing as how I work in the US n…

I'm really, really tired of the line "You have no right to X if Y". That's false; somebody might not recognise your rights, but that doesn't mean you don't have them. I personally believe everyone has a right to move across arbitrary lines written on some map by wealthy people in the past few centuries. I believe it is a natural right for every human being, as much as the right to participate in the organization of y…

"I personally believe everyone has a right to move across arbitrary lines written on some map by wealthy people in the past few centuries."

That is false. Every country has the right to determine who can enter its borders.

Re: My U.S. Border Nightmare

#213

Post by a_a_r_o_n » Fri, Feb 03, 2012, 1:37 PM UTC

harshreality wrote: post #207

a_a_r_o_n wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"US border guards are primarily ex-military." Ex-military, like everyone else in the world, are individuals. Being in the military doesn't turn you into an asshole, although it could amplify that tendency if you went in with it. Military and ex-military are not exotic aliens, they're us, nothing more and nothing less. I think it's more likely that poor treatment at the border is institutional.

The Stanford Prison Experiment seems to contradict your claim that normal people can't/won't be conditioned to develop hostility in "us vs them" scenarios.

I don't claim that normal people can't or won't be conditioned to develop hostility in us vs them scenarios.

I also don't claim that being in the military doesn't change people. Everything changes people, and the change in the military can be profound; in my opinion that change will most often be positive. I am biased, being ex-Navy.

What I'm saying is that the military doesn't produce assholes to the extent that you can reliably explain that behavior as a result of having been in the military. They're individuals.

Re: My U.S. Border Nightmare

#214

Post by zotz » Fri, Feb 03, 2012, 1:43 PM UTC

RexRollman wrote: post #212

toyg wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really, really tired of the line "You have no right to X if Y". That's false; somebody might not recognise your rights, but that doesn't mean you don't have them. I personally believe everyone has a right to move across arbitrary lines written on some map by wealthy people in the past few centuries. I believe it is a natural right for every human being, as much as the right to participate in the organization of y…

"I personally believe everyone has a right to move across arbitrary lines written on some map by wealthy people in the past few centuries." That is false. Every country has the right to determine who can enter its borders.

> Every country has the right to determine who can enter its borders.

Every government, legitimate or not, has the power to decree who may or may not enter the country.

There's a huge difference between a power and a right.

Re: My U.S. Border Nightmare

#215

Post by harshreality » Fri, Feb 03, 2012, 1:46 PM UTC

wazoox wrote: post #138

prawn wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm always worried in these situations that not using the word "sir" would impact on my experience and their reaction. It seems to be a common thing to say in the US, but I can't remember ever using it outside of a joke in my life.

OTOH, I find the habit that Americans have of calling everyone "guys", particularly from waiters, janitors, etc, annoying and vulgar, but apparently that's the habit on the other side of the pond (or am I that old?). How would you call a person you don't know? Particularly someone with authority, like a cop, border guard, etc? Just curious; so far I still consider "mister", "man", "ol'guy" and "chap" to be deliberate…

I'm an American, I've lived several major cities (so I'm not blinded by a specific localized culture), and calling people "guy" as a generic pronoun doesn't strike me as a universal Americanism. Where it is used, it's just as a greeting:

"Hey, guy..." or "Hey, dude..." or "Hey, man...". I prefer just "Hey" or "Hi" to get someone's attention. "Mister" and "ol(d|') guy" seem anacronistic to me. (I was born after Vietnam if that helps.) "Mate", "chap", etc. are the same idea, but originate in British (or colonial British) culture.

Those attention-getting pronouns are frowned upon in formal or "civilized" (upper-class or upper-middle-class) communication, I suppose because it's considered informal or rude to try to grab someone's attention that way. However, in everyday vulgar (as in not-formal) speech, I don't consider any of them to be insulting. There are other culture-specific race-specific and gender-specific pronouns which can be very insulting, to the point of getting you killed when used in the wrong situation, but can also be okay depending on who you are and who you're talking to.

When talking to cops, border guards, or any agent of the executive branch who has the power to ruin your day, I would always use "sir" or "ma'am".

Re: My U.S. Border Nightmare

#216

Post by halostatue » Fri, Feb 03, 2012, 1:57 PM UTC

burgerbrain wrote: post #128

potatolicious wrote: post #8

Author seems a bit naive about international sovereignty, though I suppose one can't exactly blame him for it. I grew up in Vancouver, a stone's throw from the border, so I suppose I take it for granted that we all learn very early on that CBP is a wretched hive of scum and villainy, and everyone knows someone who was chewed out, berated, and generally treated like a criminal by them. Seeing as how I work in the US n…

"You have no right to enter a country where you are not a citizen, regardless of what treaties and protocols your two nations have set up." I am a citizen, so I have a right to enter this country. Why is it that they harass me? I suspect they just like harassing everybody. Citizenship is barely involved.

I agree. I am a dual-citizen of Canada and the U.S., and I hate travelling to the U.S. because > 50% of my interactions with the U.S. border folks are suspicious of me because I'm a dual citizen. There is something wrong with a system that is set up to assume that people are lying to you when in reality they may be confused.

IMO, better people training is required—but that requires spending money on soft-skill stuff that the U.S. doesn't want to spend on either CBP or TSA agents.

The absolute single biggest problem with the way CBP works (especially for non-citizens) is that a CBP agent with a bad attitude can decide to reject your entry for no reason whatsoever and no right of appeal. (The second problem, at least at Toronto Pearson, is that some of these folks apparently hate working in Canada. If you hate it, get a fucking transfer. You're a guest in Canada, and it's a great place to live. Stop being a sourpuss because your bad attitude is making it worse for all of the people you interact with, and you're a representative for the U.S. Do you really want to give a negative impression of the U.S. based on your attitude?)

Re: My U.S. Border Nightmare

#217

Post by pmjordan » Fri, Feb 03, 2012, 2:28 PM UTC

nraynaud wrote: post #194

pmjordan wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Schengen is just one mutual agreement of no border controls between member countries and enforced border controls to other countries. Any 2 countries which are not part of Schengen are free to enter a similar bilateral agreement.

This border is a bit particular, it's the place where a long religious war has taken place.

They may not be religious, but many borders (probably most of those which aren't due to the natural geography?) are the subject or result of some kind of conflict. So is this border really that special? Probably most borders in Europe were the subject of conflict within the last 100 years, but we've ended up with the Schengen agreement nevertheless.

Re: My U.S. Border Nightmare

#218

Post by krschultz » Fri, Feb 03, 2012, 2:33 PM UTC

You need a laywer. Plain and simple. There are very good lawyers for this type of stuff - unfortunately they are not cheap and I assume the cost would eat most of the YC investment. But it can be cleared up and worked out if you want to.

Having done business across this border before I'm sorry to say this is a very typical story. Recreational travel across the US/Canada border is quite simple but both sides are sticklers for business travel. People have crossed 50 times to go skiing or visit family without a problem and get used to that process, and then show up the 51st time saying they're on a business trip and end up getting refused because they don't have the right visa.

Re: My U.S. Border Nightmare

#219

Post by rdtsc » Fri, Feb 03, 2012, 2:38 PM UTC

salman89 wrote: post #91

I think that the author is misleading his readers. YC is a far cry from a training program. "Often this training involves setting up an American corporation for the startup activities - but I'll get to that later.". Why didn't he just say he was accepted into a start-up incubator, and his company was being funded in exchange for a piece of the company that was being incorporated, and that they were going to make a re…

> Why didn't he just say he was accepted into a start-up incubator

Then they'd arrest him for being a bio-terrorist.

Re: My U.S. Border Nightmare

#220

Post by krschultz » Fri, Feb 03, 2012, 2:43 PM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #83

latch wrote: post #6

I couldn't get through that wall of incoherent text. But from what I read, he's 100% wrong...maybe the story gets really weird though...however.. Traveling to a country which you are not a citizen of is not a right, it's a privilege. There are places where you need to apply weeks (or months) in advanced just to visit. Every country has different types of visas, and each visa has restrictions on what sort of activity…

This is completely true. If somebody's house stinks and is ugly, it's totally within his right to say to everybody: "don't like the stink? Don't come to my house!". However, the house doesn't stop to stink because of that :) I think US immigration policies could use a lot of improvement (using more polite expression here) and their implementation, including proneness of some personnel to power trips, could use a lot…

Well, technically it benefits the citizens of the US if it prevents terrorists from coming in. Recall that the 9/11 terrorists came via the US/Canadian border. The first goal of the border agents is to prevent that from happening again. The 2nd goal is smooth service for all the non-terrorists. Unfortunately this is the world we live in.