Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney, who does work for YC and startups. AMA

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 486 posts

Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney, who does work for YC and startups. AMA

#401

Post by Propelloni »

deadbabe wrote: post #133
proberts wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The short answer is that CBP has the right to ask to see your electronic devices and you have the right to refuse but if you refuse (and you are not a U.S. green card holder or citizen), CBP likely will deny you admission and send you home.

I had a friend who was asked to unlock her phone, and she did, and then… they did nothing. They watched her do it and moved on to the next question. Seems like asking someone to do this is just a good test to see the kind of individual they’re dealing with. It’s not practical to thoroughly search phones at scale and plus they know people can just have burner phones anyway. If you’re cagey and combative they know you’…

An acquaintance used to work airport security and he told me they asked to unlock/power up etc. electronic devices such as phones, laptops or SLR to check if they are real electronic devices. Apparently they were -- maybe are -- afraid of EDs that looked like electronics on the scanners.

Not completely groundless, even if I could think of more than one way to construct a device, e.g. laptop, that boots up and still explodes, but hey.

Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney, who does work for YC and startups. AMA

#403

Post by AngryData »

_bin_ wrote: post #223
Plasmoid wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Answering "Yes" to 1 when you don't have a green card or US citizenship would be a way to guarantee that I would rescind your offer This might actually violate EEOC. You would discriminating on the basis on nationality. The question that was asked was "Are you legally authorized to work in the US?" and Canadian have a limited legal right to work in the US under NAFTA.

The question is usually understood to mean "on an ongoing basis" and it's essentially lying. The system may not be correct or kind, but I'd have a lot of trouble trusting someone whose response to "the system isn't fair" is "I'll lie to get around it and achieve the outcome I believe is right" enough to hire him.

I personally wouldn't have a lot of faith in the abilities and judgement of someone who doesn't leverage an unfair system to their advantage despite there being basically no downsides to doing so unless im hiring a middle manager to sort through excessive bureaucratic bloat.

Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney, who does work for YC and startups. AMA

#404

Post by Spivak »

jigpaw wrote: post #395
taway20250516 wrote: post #374

A legally-uneducated read of 22 CFR 51.62 suggests that the State Department can revoke a passport that was "illegally, fraudulently, or erroneously obtained." How likely would you consider the idea that the current administration would revoke existing passports for transgender Americans under the pretense that they were "fraudulently or erroneously" obtained under processes put in place by previous administrations?

If a male obtains a passport which states that his sex is female, or vice versa, then that is erroneous, isn't it?

One could make that argument, except that until the Trump administration the US government has made no distinction between sex and gender when it comes to sex markers. A transgender woman is a transexual woman is legally female. They have explicitly allowed updating passports and had a process of providing documentation from courts and doctors to prove that one has transitioned. So no one obtained anything erroneously or fraudulently and in fact were very upfront about it.

Where it gets awkward for everyone involved is when you have a trans woman say who is recognized female on her birth certificate and by her state now coming in conflict with a federal government that suddenly doesn't respect that. Where it gets even awkwarder-r is more trans people pass than people assume and it would cause more issues to have their chromosomal sex listed on their ID than not. If my friend who is a trans woman walked into the men's bathroom they would be like, "hey lady this is the men's."

Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney, who does work for YC and startups. AMA

#405

Post by Slava_Propanei »

creaturemachine wrote: post #272
robomartin wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have been reading a lot of articles about detentions at US airports and phone checks. I travel internationally all the time. I work with companies in China, Singapore, Japan, Australia, Europe and Latin America. Meaning, I know lots of people who travel internationally with great frequency. I have never heard from anyone having any such problems. Ever. Not during this administration nor others. Stop listening to…

"What are you complaining about? Just be white like me."

[dead]

Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney, who does work for YC and startups. AMA

#406

Post by AStonesThrow »

Propelloni wrote: post #401
deadbabe wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a friend who was asked to unlock her phone, and she did, and then… they did nothing. They watched her do it and moved on to the next question. Seems like asking someone to do this is just a good test to see the kind of individual they’re dealing with. It’s not practical to thoroughly search phones at scale and plus they know people can just have burner phones anyway. If you’re cagey and combative they know you’…

An acquaintance used to work airport security and he told me they asked to unlock/power up etc. electronic devices such as phones, laptops or SLR to check if they are real electronic devices. Apparently they were -- maybe are -- afraid of EDs that looked like electronics on the scanners. Not completely groundless, even if I could think of more than one way to construct a device, e.g. laptop, that boots up and still e…

Perhaps EDs are a concern, but mostly what terrorists actually use phones for is remote detonation. A feature phone is the ideal sort of radio transmitter, modified or not, to send a remote command to detonate explosives. If security is really scrutinizing carry-on luggage, then perhaps the strategy moves to placing a bomb in checked baggage, and carrying only the trigger through the checkpoint.

So if you force someone to turn on their phone or laptop at security, you will hopefully force the decision point; even if the inspector cannot tell the difference, a terrorist is going to get real nervous and jumpy around activating the thing they intend to use as a detonator, in contrast to some businessdude activating his very ordinary mobile device.

Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney, who does work for YC and startups. AMA

#407

Post by AdrianB1 »

david422 wrote: post #56
miotintherain wrote: post #21

Hi Peter, thanks for doing this AMA. I am traveling to the US soon for work from Europe. I have been reading a lot of articles about detentions at US airports and phone checks. My mindset has always been to never give my personal phone for an inspection, but times has changed now and it has been happening a lot more frequently. I am wondering what is the best course of action, prior to travel and if asked to give you…

I'm wondering if anyone uses burner phones. I have an old phone, and a second phone number that I got from Tello for $5 a month, intending to use it for a business number, but then never did. It's currently completely detached from anything personal and I figure if I do need to go over the border I could just use that still for any communication and internet access, but personal details would be at a very bare minimu…

Yes. If I will have to go there on a normal visa, I will not take my phone with me, just the SIM card. For the laptop, I don't care at all, it is a company laptop and as long as the company agrees to open it up for the border control, I will, but I will set a clean password upfront that meets the minimum complexity requirements ("UperLower12345#") with no access to anything else. I have long random passwords on all accounts like email or Amazon account, I never type it in because I never know the password, that may be a problem if they ask me - who will believe that the only 2 passwords I ever know are for the company laptop and for my desktop at home in Europe?

This is not because I have something to hide, but because I have nothing to show. I don't have Facebook, Twitter or Instagram accounts, don't keep pictures on the phone (family pictures are downloaded on the NAS, I don't take other pictures), so there is nothing to show on a personal level, while the company I work for is a big, old US company and the content of the laptop is theirs, not mine, and it is nothing sensitive that even our business competitors would be interested into.

I case I would go there as a tourist, my only luggage would be my motorcycle helmet and a pair of gloves, I would rent a bike, buy a cheap phone with a local number and do road trips around the country. Not even a suitcase, so nothing to show. If they ask me about itinerary, that is a high risk for me because I use to travel across Europe without an itinerary, just a direction, they may not believe me, but old bikers don't go to a destination, they go wherever the road goes.

Re: I'm Peter Roberts, immigration attorney, who does work for YC and startups. AMA

#408

Post by AdrianB1 »

rane wrote: post #391
mandeepj wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My mindset has always been to never give my personal phone for an inspection Get a burner phone! Upload your entire data to the cloud as well. Either you can store your phone in the check-in luggage or restore your data once you've arrived at your US location.

So what happens if you just put your phone in the check-in luggage and say you don't have a phone?

Don't lie. If you are caught, very nasty things can happen to you.
Post reply on HN