←back to thread

226 points proberts | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source

As usual, there are countless immigration topics and I'll be guided by whatever you're concerned with. Please remember that I can't provide legal advice on specific cases for obvious liability reasons because I won't have access to all the facts. Please stick to a factual discussion in your questions and comments and I'll do the same in my answers!

Previous threads we've done: https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=proberts.

Show context
miotintherain ◴[] No.46163747[source]
Hi Peter, thanks for the AMA!

I work for an American company and I am based in Europe. I visit the US for work every now and then. I heard a lot of horror stories regarding border entries. If I am ever in a situation where the border police asks for access to my personal phone and pin code, what are my options? Can I refuse and what happens then?

replies(6): >>46164511 #>>46164632 #>>46165193 #>>46165959 #>>46168483 #>>46173015 #
proberts ◴[] No.46165193[source]
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.
replies(3): >>46165239 #>>46166254 #>>46169694 #
ToucanLoucan[dead post] ◴[] No.46165239[source]
[flagged]
nkrisc ◴[] No.46165909[source]
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.

replies(2): >>46166343 #>>46166842 #
tempfile ◴[] No.46166842[source]
> 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".

replies(1): >>46167069 #
mpweiher ◴[] No.46167069[source]
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".

replies(1): >>46167166 #
tempfile ◴[] No.46167166[source]
No, it isn't.

For example, I do not have an obligation to let people into my house. I can choose to let them in or decline them entry. But there are certain preconditions I cannot apply. I cannot, for example, say "you may come into my house only if you murder my neighbour". That's because I'm legally bound not to induce people to commit murder. It would obviously be disingenuous to say this means I have an "obligation to admit" them.

It's the same with immigration. They actually are legally bound in certain ways - an immigration official can't assault you for instance. It's not hard to imagine them being legally bound not to search people's phones. That doesn't mean "they have to admit people".

replies(4): >>46167809 #>>46168342 #>>46171305 #>>46172844 #
nmilo ◴[] No.46167809{6}[source]
You're confusing yourself with irrelevant analogies. You can say, "you may come into my house only if you give me your unlocked phone," and an immigration official can't assault you because there are certain protections granted to foreigners against being randomly assaulted. It's also not hard to imagine them NOT being legally bound not to search people's phones, and if you're trying to say someone's breaking the law here then it's your burden of proof.
replies(1): >>46172280 #
1. tempfile ◴[] No.46172280{7}[source]
I am not confused :-)

Of course I can say that. I can say "you can't come into my house if you're black" too. The point is that it's unethical. It would be unethical for me to search your phone before you entered my house, too. This is not complicated, I'm not sure why you're having trouble understanding it.