461–470 of 586 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, this is common practice at nearly every border crossing for nearly every country (including Norway).
They might turn you around, but they're not going to beat you up and strip search you for not having the right papers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So sad that the policies and actions implemented by the current "regime" can affect the views of people that are not living there, or perhaps you just haven't been paying attention to the news since February 2025...
The world might be much better off if we could remember that a place is that place, not just the few rich people who own the guns and the news.
Sure - America is a beautiful country, and people that I had met while on vacations and business trips were all very nice - I have driven thousands of miles (to/from Las Vegas from AB, Florida from ON) and never had a bad experience. But - unfortunately, the current political and cultural climate down there is just a little too "hot" - I hope it works out for the average person, but I don't have high hopes.
All the bickering about the validity of this specific story and the “if you don’t like it don’t ever leave home to go anywhere ever” misses the crux of the issue that these articles are trying to raise: * Do we agree that a law enforcement arm of any country should be allowed to perform warrantless searches of electronic devices? * Do we find it acceptable that persons with critical views are denied entry to countrie…
What we are seeing now is an assault on the idea of rights. This border control action is a salami slicing tactic against the idea of rights itself. To rob others of their dignity... their freedom to express themselves and form their own beliefs and convictions without consequences from the government means that it is no longer a right to have your own opinions and assessments, but instead that is a privilege reserved only for "the protected."
Rights exist as a counter-force to tyranny and the entire idea, language, and history of rights exists in the context of when it is justified to break the rules of authoritarian governments and fight tyranny. To call something a right is to say it is worth breaking the law to protect because it exists above law. The declaration of independence is absolutely crystal clear that rights supersede law which is why the founders of America were justified in violating British law and forming a government that protects rights rather than violates them.
When you do not protect the rights of others, it is a prelude to losing your own rights because once a right is turned into a privilege for anybody, structurally it has been turned into a privilege for everybody because the "right" is no longer derived from human dignity, but from law. Eventually you will disagree with those in power, and you will come to discover the same techniques used to weaken others rights will weaken your own. There is always a pretext or game to be played. Slavery was made illegal, but prisoners are allowed to be enslaved. Drug law turned people into criminals, which gave the government permission to take away their rights and force them into slave labor, which is a clear moral hazard. Denaturalization is something that can happen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denaturalization#Human_rights
If freedom of speech can only be denied to those who are not protected by state, then the state will figure out how to put you in the class of unprotected people, whether that is foreigner or criminal.
By the time you feel at risk of your own rights being violated, you will find yourself and everyone else have been habituated to ask if that specific person's rights should be protected rather than if a right has been violated or if you would feel robbed of your own dignity in that same situation, and the answer will be no, because the cost of answering yes will be too unbearable to acknowledge because doing so both creates a sense of personal responsibility and puts you at mortal risk while simultaneously making you feel alone, since nobody else seems to be provoked enough to act.
All the bickering about the validity of this specific story and the “if you don’t like it don’t ever leave home to go anywhere ever” misses the crux of the issue that these articles are trying to raise: * Do we agree that a law enforcement arm of any country should be allowed to perform warrantless searches of electronic devices? * Do we find it acceptable that persons with critical views are denied entry to countrie…
I did not keep the count of many times I crossed each borders, but I can assure you it was pretty much always easier to get into China than it was to get into the US (and that was before Trump).
Chinese authorities are no jokes, but the amount of non sense you need to put up to get into the free land, is very high.
All the bickering about the validity of this specific story and the “if you don’t like it don’t ever leave home to go anywhere ever” misses the crux of the issue that these articles are trying to raise: * Do we agree that a law enforcement arm of any country should be allowed to perform warrantless searches of electronic devices? * Do we find it acceptable that persons with critical views are denied entry to countrie…
I have traveled extensively to both the US and China (where I did a master degree) several years ago. I did not keep the count of many times I crossed each borders, but I can assure you it was pretty much always easier to get into China than it was to get into the US (and that was before Trump). Chinese authorities are no jokes, but the amount of non sense you need to put up to get into the free land, is very high.
Does even China does that? Go through pics on your personal device at the border? Refuse entry over memes.
Yes they do, once you connect to cell service in China your data is comprised. As well as unlawful detentions and exit bans. But we don't talk about that for whatever reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So how many times does something like this need to happen before you accept that it's happening?
Exactly once. But, I would need to know what actually happened, as opposed to what a person thinks or reports having happened. To share an anecdote, a person I knew in high school went around telling people that he got tasered for having a broken tail light on his car. Well, he did have a broken tail light, and he was tasered, but when the body cam footage came out, it tells the story of kid getting pulled over, bein…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, words mean things and if you use them randomly people will not take you seriously. If you start telling me about how Syria has a serious problem with fundamentalist Baptists I am just going to assume you have no idea what you're talking about.
The meaning of words shifts over time. Fascism and authoritarianism are colloquially conflated so often that if you make a stink about somebody calling the GDR fascist, people are going to assume you are either an apologist for the communist flavor of authoritarianism, or an autistic pedant. Really, you're just pissing into the wind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, of course most places inspect luggage, but here in the US luggage inspection is done mostly by staff who are not police/military.
There are many more armed services in the US than police/military. Dept. of Education has a SWAT team. Amtrak has armed force. US Park service has one. Really, there are so many of them.