We need a movement to legalize borders as being under control of the legal system of the country. We don't need barbarians running our borders that answer to no law or the Constitution. If they have no covenant with the people like the law or the Constitution, what right do they have to any authority. It makes no sense that any such group of people should have all of this authority for which they are not held to account... and can't be held to account by the people who they are harassing and diminishing.
It's nothing more than an analogue of a protection racket.
> We need a movement to legalize borders as being under control of the legal system of the country.
They are subject to the legal system of the US. It's just that, within 100 miles of any border, Constitutional rights are limited, and non-citizens have fewer rights at border crossings.
What are your Constitutional Rights at border crossing? What are rights of non-citizens? From various incidents that have come out it seems as if it's the Wild West where whatever the idiot harassing you decides, with little recourse if you disagree. Further it makes no sense to arbitrarily take away all citizens rights in certain locations in the country... that's guilty before proven innocent.
"From various incidents that have come out it seems as if it's the Wild West where whatever the idiot harassing you decides, with little recourse if you disagree"
The legal framework is that searches are permissible incident to a border crossing and some distance from the border after a recent border crossing.
CBP won't get away with using that rule to search someone that has not recently crossed the border.
When they setup checkpoints, they can't do arbitrary searches (they can just check vehicles for aliens). So they have less leeway in those situations than when they are doing a border search.
The CBP checkpoints within the US near the southern border routinely use drug sniffing dogs and stop and search vehicles, including arresting US citizens. They're not just checking identity.
Borders are under control of the legal system and policing them is a right that's granted to the Federal government by the constitution. It makes complete sense that the Federal government, which is elected by US citizens would be able to policy foreigners entering the country without being held accountable to them. That's how every country in the world works. You may not like this system now that "the wrong people" have been elected to run the federal government but that's the way the system works and it's incredibly reasonable.
I can't see how you draw the analogue of to a protection racket, they're not collecting money from anyone here.
Bullshit it's reasonable. First of all it's not only non-citizens that are being constantly stripped of their rights, it's non-citizens and citizens alike. Further, it often goes well beyond reasonable policing to invasive searches into the private lives of individuals including stripping away their rights to human dignity. It may have been reasonable 50 years ago. It's no longer reasonable.
And it's a racket. In that they are supposedly protecting the people who they are robbing via taxes, and they are harassing the same people. And it's more or less security theater in that the point is the harassment and the humiliation. Because you are in fear you are supposed to feel protected.
50 years ago you would have to be MLK or MX to have a whole dossier on you, someone important, notable, or problematic. Today every citizen has a virtual dossier on them that's a click away. The level of intrusion into private lives is excessive and in many ways illegal according to human rights conventions and the Constitution.
Rights routinely infringed:
Article 1 Right to Equality
Article 2 Freedom from Discrimination
Article 3 Right to Life, Liberty, Personal Security
Article 5 Freedom from Torture and Degrading Treatment
Article 9 Freedom from Arbitrary Arrest and Exile
Article 10 Right to Fair Public Hearing
Article 11 Right to be Considered Innocent until Proven Guilty
Article 12 Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
Article 13 Right to Free Movement in and out of the Country
Article 14 Right to Asylum in other Countries from Persecution
Article 18 Freedom of Belief and Religion
Article 19 Freedom of Opinion and Information
Article 26 Right to Education
Article 30 Freedom from State or Personal Interference in the above Rights
The U.N. Convention on Human Rights does not have the force of law in the United States. While many of the rights in the list above were first codified in the Constitution, others are not specified as rights in that document.
Of course, being natural rights, those not so enumerated are assumed to obtain unless specifically restricted by the Constitution or federal, state, or local law. In the U.S., the place to look for whether this or that right not specifically called out in the Bill of Rights has been restricted is those laws and the court rulings concerning those laws.
So, for example, there is no right to education in the U.S., and while the U.S. historically has been the greatest haven for asylum seekers, that does not mean that non-citizens have an affirmative right to enter the U.S.
The saddest part of all this is that the dossier on you and me was made possible by people like you and me who work in the tech industry. Google and Facebook have information on most people that the Stasi could only have dreamed of possessing.
Even as an American citizen but an Australian resident - these stories make me afraid to travel to the US. Might the border agents find me to be unacceptably foreign?
There were plenty of other reasons to be afraid before, the random gun crime, police state, lack of healthcare and the TSA cancer machines / groping being the main ones. Being legally disinvited is only a fear if it's financially a hit to have to fly back from their airport.
Was it really worth watering down a list of worthwhile fears with absurd sensationalism, just to make it longer?
The risk of death in a vehicle far exceeds that of gun violence. If you're talking about injuries perpetrated by a stranger, that disparity grows more yet.
The lack of healthcare doesn't exist, though you'll certainly have to pay up. But really, 'lack'? If you find yourself injured, you can probably look up and find a billboard for a hospital (see the previous point on how you're likely to get hurt.) And there will almost certainly be first rate care at said hospital.
And most egregiously, 'cancer machines'? Are you referring to the backscatter x-rays, which deliver a smaller dose than a single banana? Or the millimeter wave machines, which operate at low intensity, and actually deliver no dose of ionizing radiation whatsoever, due to operating at a wavelength with photon energies measured in MILLI-eV? Why not plan your travels around local geology and only travel by boat? Because if you think you're sensitive to millimeter waves, you're really going to be upset at the gammas coming from ground sources, as well as the ones hitting you when you're not underneath those final 7km of sweet, sweet radiation-attenuating atmosphere.
There are valid reasons not to travel to the US, even in your own post. Why bury them under such nonsense?
> If you're talking about injuries perpetrated by a stranger, that disparity grows more yet.
I'm not sure where to find this data, but it seems likely to me that most motor vehicle deaths are self-inflicted (if not intentionally). Of course, because motor vehicle deaths are much more often due to accident than intention, I suspect strangers are more commonly involved (the person who shoots you has a good chance of being someone who knows and dislikes you).
Today, my wife, who is an American citizen of Indian origin, told me she is afraid to travel around town without her passport. We read stories like this and about broad ICE raids and the shooting in Kansas and it begins to take a toll.
And as an Australian resident, you are used to difficult bureaucracies, amirite?
As an American with Australian family, they always tell me how much easier dealing with the G is here when they visit and drive their massive rented RV around.
Yeah, but if a French historian can be detained for having the wrong type of visa how am I gonna fare as a tattooed hipster aussie with no respectability?!?! :O
As for the injustices suffered by RV drivers, I cannot comment. Although, I'm sure their road to recognition in our country has been long and pothole-filled.
My partner and I are visiting Europe shortly (from NZ). We were going to transit the US on the way back, stopping for a few days. Luckily we hadn't booked return flights yet, and have since decided to visit Canada instead (luckily, Air NZ runs direct flights from Vancouver to Auckland now).
We're pretty boring pakeha, and I doubt we'd have trouble at the border. But... given a few months more until we'd be visiting, we're uncertain enough about what other legal requirements might get rammed through (and the ETSA is already enough of a hassle) that it just doesn't seem worthwhile.
This is just an anecdote, and I'm sure I'm being overly paranoid. But I don't really want to tack on a potentially very stressful end to a holiday. It makes me sad to think of how trivial an inconvenience this is for me, compared to friends I have who are much more strongly affected by the ban.
I don't get this part? Can you clarify what part is a hassle? ESTA just seems great to me: fill a form online and get (most of the time) an "immediate tourist visa".
When you're from a country that isn't in the ESTA program, then it can be a hassle!
You don't really get a visa, but an approval for visa exemption I believe.
You're right -- the concept is great :). Last time I got an ESTA, however, the site was somewhat byzantine, chock-full of confusing legalese and the response was slow. Comparatively, to get into Europe for 90 days we just have to arrive (https://www.safetravel.govt.nz/travel-tips-travel-europe) -- same goes for Canada.
However, after checking, it does seem like the site has improved a lot. It's been a while :).
So it does; thanks! I didn't see any indication that existed on the various NZ government sites about travelling. That would've made for an unfortunate arrival.
The whole concept goes against the concept of visa-free travel. No matter what they are termed those are effectively – usually automatically processed – visa against the spirit of bilateral visa-free agreements. It used to be that you can turn up at the border to apply for entry there instead of beforehand. Those "travel authorizations" are a step back. Not to mention all the data footprint that this process creates additionally.
As the article says, agents feel empowered to find ways to deny.
Be prepared to have all your devices searched too. I'm talking about your photos, your online banking app, your emails, your Whatsapp logs, etc (just happened to an Australian I know) if they suspect you may be violating the terms of your visa. You can decline, but do you really want to cancel your trip, wait 12 hours for the next 15 hour flight back home?
(Edit: this is for non US citizens. US citizens don't need to answer any questions at entry, but be prepared to be taken aside for screening. You'll be asked to unlock your phone most likely, and if you refuse, they will confiscate it, but then you can enter.)
"Edit: this is for non US citizens. US citizens don't need to answer any questions at entry, but be prepared to be taken aside for screening"
Also be prepared to answer questions about your religion... regardless of if you're a citizen or not. we finally have a religious test to enter the country..
While I'm sure many will jump on this as a symptom of the current political climate, I'm more inclined to trust the statement from border control regarding an inexperienced agent. Everybody chill.
For a foreign scholar performing a substantial lecture (like teaching a course), a J-1 visa is required. For a simple conference presentation, you should absolutely be able to get by on a B visa. Some new guy got confused. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Before Trump took office, customs was a pain in the ass for _citizens_ of this country. It will continue to be a pain in the ass for a long, long time.
You mean, you don't find anything wrong with that fact that someone was detained for 10 hours, due to a single, "inexperience" agent? And he was a well-connected individual. Others would likely endure far worse.
I found it wrong when it happened before Trump. I continue to find it wrong. This is one of the main reasons I like small government. They tend to do a shitty job.
Have you found large institutions to be more responsible and efficient? I have not. I have found the opposite.
Large orgs always have stories like this. Management and accountability are hard to scale and the problem is as true for the private sector as it is for public.
Customs is a straw man for the argument at large, but nevertheless the statement works: I prefer small government because I've seen the collassal fuckups they are capable of at scale.
(My favorite government entity is the USGS)
@fictioncircle: no reply available, so I'll address your question here: no, we should not ban large business. We should provide basic structure to support competition. Since government is not something we can frame competitively (we can't pick which government to use once one is established without substantial "frictions"), we should just keep them small and out of the way.
> Customs is a straw man for the argument at large, but nevertheless the statement works: I prefer small government because I've seen the collassal fuckups they are capable of at scale.
The same is true of businesses. Should we ban large corporations since the same logic applies?
"The same is true of businesses. Should we ban large corporations since the same logic applies?"
@fictioncircle:
Ban? No. But an end to bailouts would sure be a nice change. Large size should bring additional risk, not a governmental assurance that you'll never have to face any consequences for misbehavior.
> we should just keep them small and out of the way
Large businesses also cause colossal problems when unregulated. Consider the Great Depression and Great Recession, the two greatest economic calamities of the last century.
The answer to the problem of large institutions isn't to give some unfettered power.
The notion that regions where government is poorly funded or barely present perform better in terms of due process is so counterfactual that it's hard to know what to say about it.
I am seriously considering changing my vacation destination this year from New York to someplace else.
We love New York and want very much to visit some places we haven't had the chance in other trips, but my girlfriend doesn't speak english and something like that would be tremendously traumatic for us.
I know at least a friend who cancelled a trip to the USA fearing immigration problems.
I've read similar stories before the current administration. Telling a CBP officer that you're going to be "paid to lecture" is not recommended. This is a kind of honesty that doesn't return a favor.
I wonder if those stories that started appearing in the media since the Trump ban order are really showing a true change in US border control actions, or are they just a hot topic so both travelers and media are more eager to report on that.
It is likely that those kind of detentions were happening for years, but they didn't got much news coverage.
After all if you don't like Trumps policies you will happily read about related stories as it confirms what you already believe in.
I think it's best to not get carried away just because a few people got detained. It seems a bit too little to call it policy shift for border control officers, at least as long it stays just incidental issue. FUD is always quick to spread and hard to fight against.
If the stories of deplorable and pointless detentions are true, and there are no concomitant stories of terrorists being stopped at the border or whatever (something one assumes the government would be highly motivated to report), does it actually matter that the stories were under-reported previously in the press? The important thing is that the issue gets attention and is resolved.
I don't care if it was done under Obama too, it doesn't bless it and shouldn't make it okay with liberals.
Trump is still worthy of criticism by association because of his immigration policies clearly back this kind of behavior. And Obama is too if he condoned this.
We lack quantitative data, but the article has an expert practitioner's impression:
[Immigration attorney Jason] Mills said the treatment Mr. Rousso experienced was unusual, but representative of a shift in how some border agents are approaching their jobs.
"Now they’re looking really hard for reasons to deny, instead of reasons to admit," he said.
This was done under previous administrations just the same. Telling a CBP officer that you're come to be "paid to lecture" is usually the kind of honesty that doesn't pay off.
CBPs are triggered by the word "work" and "get paid". For example, when you come to volunteer on a WOOOFing farm, you're advised to say you've come for a learning experience rather than "to volunteer" (= CBP hears this as "to work"):
https://wwoofusa.org/how-it-works/#will-wwoof-help-me-get-a-...
So an academic came on a tourist visa, but was giving a talk related to his work and accepting money. Under US visa rules this is allowed, but is not being classified as "work", so a tourist visa is sufficient.
Except the Agent (who has probably never met an academic) didn't realise this and incorrectly (although understandably) concluded that the Mr. Rousso was working while on a tourist visa. Especially since Mr. Roussos speaking fee is probably the equivalent of a few days work for the customs agent
This is probably a simple mix-up that escalated because of a clash of cultures (both national and educational).
> This is probably a simple mix-up that escalated because of a clash of cultures (both national and educational).
Twenty minutes would be indicative of a simple mix-up. 10 hours is honestly just kind of strange (think of how many people in the escalation process didn't understand the rules or didn't care) and IMO indicates a pretty serious problem.
In fact, the UK appears to require a different visa for this purpose. (And it's not clear to me from a couple of things I've read that the Tourist Waiver Program covers paid engagements in the US arranged in advance--though there is a Business Waiver Program.)
Getting paid to speak at a conference can definitely raise issues if you're used to just getting a standard visa for tourism or just attending a conference.
This is absolutely not the norm. If this thing was resolved in a 20 mins after the mix-up we could agree. But 10 hrs for a business visa is not the norm. As someone who has traveled at least 50 times in pre-Trump era on immigration purposes, I have extensive experience with border agents. In fact, once coming back from my trip to Mexico, I had forgotten to get my I-20 stamped from my school. The border agents where phenomenal to deal with this, they produced a new I-20 with current dates and requested me to get it stamped with my school in the next 48 hrs and fax USCIS a copy. This was done within an hour. I shudder to think what will happen with a situation like this today.
I disagree, and I too have extensive experience over many decades with border agents. I have both a Permanent Resident "green" card and a Global Entry card, yet 4 times in the past 12 months (and many times prior) I was extracted for Secondary Processing at the border, held waiting for hours without being allowed to use my cell phone, missing my connecting flights yet ultimately admitted into the U.S.. Every time it costs the U.S. tax payer an unnecessary fortune (I have Global Entry! - which itself took many many hours and dozens of pieces of paper and extreme vetting). The last time I was allowed directly into the U.S. without Secondary Processing was in the 90's. I don't find his story at all unusual.
64 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 148 ms ] threadIt's nothing more than an analogue of a protection racket.
They are subject to the legal system of the US. It's just that, within 100 miles of any border, Constitutional rights are limited, and non-citizens have fewer rights at border crossings.
That's not what I said.
> What are your Constitutional Rights at border crossing? What are rights of non-citizens?
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/business/border-enforc...
https://www.google.co.in/url?q=https://www.acluaz.org/sites/...
you're right to a large extent.
https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
CBP won't get away with using that rule to search someone that has not recently crossed the border.
When they setup checkpoints, they can't do arbitrary searches (they can just check vehicles for aliens). So they have less leeway in those situations than when they are doing a border search.
Example from a while back: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/yuma-156221-drug-bratcher...
I can't see how you draw the analogue of to a protection racket, they're not collecting money from anyone here.
And it's a racket. In that they are supposedly protecting the people who they are robbing via taxes, and they are harassing the same people. And it's more or less security theater in that the point is the harassment and the humiliation. Because you are in fear you are supposed to feel protected.
Why would it become less reasonable?
Rights routinely infringed:
Article 1 Right to Equality
Article 2 Freedom from Discrimination
Article 3 Right to Life, Liberty, Personal Security
Article 5 Freedom from Torture and Degrading Treatment
Article 9 Freedom from Arbitrary Arrest and Exile
Article 10 Right to Fair Public Hearing
Article 11 Right to be Considered Innocent until Proven Guilty
Article 12 Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
Article 13 Right to Free Movement in and out of the Country
Article 14 Right to Asylum in other Countries from Persecution
Article 18 Freedom of Belief and Religion
Article 19 Freedom of Opinion and Information
Article 26 Right to Education
Article 30 Freedom from State or Personal Interference in the above Rights
Of course, being natural rights, those not so enumerated are assumed to obtain unless specifically restricted by the Constitution or federal, state, or local law. In the U.S., the place to look for whether this or that right not specifically called out in the Bill of Rights has been restricted is those laws and the court rulings concerning those laws.
So, for example, there is no right to education in the U.S., and while the U.S. historically has been the greatest haven for asylum seekers, that does not mean that non-citizens have an affirmative right to enter the U.S.
The saddest part of all this is that the dossier on you and me was made possible by people like you and me who work in the tech industry. Google and Facebook have information on most people that the Stasi could only have dreamed of possessing.
Barely. Apparently the US constitution gets suspended at the border (and a 100 mile radius around the border)
https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
The risk of death in a vehicle far exceeds that of gun violence. If you're talking about injuries perpetrated by a stranger, that disparity grows more yet.
The lack of healthcare doesn't exist, though you'll certainly have to pay up. But really, 'lack'? If you find yourself injured, you can probably look up and find a billboard for a hospital (see the previous point on how you're likely to get hurt.) And there will almost certainly be first rate care at said hospital.
And most egregiously, 'cancer machines'? Are you referring to the backscatter x-rays, which deliver a smaller dose than a single banana? Or the millimeter wave machines, which operate at low intensity, and actually deliver no dose of ionizing radiation whatsoever, due to operating at a wavelength with photon energies measured in MILLI-eV? Why not plan your travels around local geology and only travel by boat? Because if you think you're sensitive to millimeter waves, you're really going to be upset at the gammas coming from ground sources, as well as the ones hitting you when you're not underneath those final 7km of sweet, sweet radiation-attenuating atmosphere.
There are valid reasons not to travel to the US, even in your own post. Why bury them under such nonsense?
Per the CDC:
* Motor vehicle traffic deaths: 33,804
* Firearm deaths: 33,736
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
> If you're talking about injuries perpetrated by a stranger, that disparity grows more yet.
I'm not sure where to find this data, but it seems likely to me that most motor vehicle deaths are self-inflicted (if not intentionally). Of course, because motor vehicle deaths are much more often due to accident than intention, I suspect strangers are more commonly involved (the person who shoots you has a good chance of being someone who knows and dislikes you).
As an American with Australian family, they always tell me how much easier dealing with the G is here when they visit and drive their massive rented RV around.
As for the injustices suffered by RV drivers, I cannot comment. Although, I'm sure their road to recognition in our country has been long and pothole-filled.
P.S. The trick is to relax.
We're pretty boring pakeha, and I doubt we'd have trouble at the border. But... given a few months more until we'd be visiting, we're uncertain enough about what other legal requirements might get rammed through (and the ETSA is already enough of a hassle) that it just doesn't seem worthwhile.
This is just an anecdote, and I'm sure I'm being overly paranoid. But I don't really want to tack on a potentially very stressful end to a holiday. It makes me sad to think of how trivial an inconvenience this is for me, compared to friends I have who are much more strongly affected by the ban.
I don't get this part? Can you clarify what part is a hassle? ESTA just seems great to me: fill a form online and get (most of the time) an "immediate tourist visa".
When you're from a country that isn't in the ESTA program, then it can be a hassle!
You don't really get a visa, but an approval for visa exemption I believe.
However, after checking, it does seem like the site has improved a lot. It's been a while :).
The whole concept goes against the concept of visa-free travel. No matter what they are termed those are effectively – usually automatically processed – visa against the spirit of bilateral visa-free agreements. It used to be that you can turn up at the border to apply for entry there instead of beforehand. Those "travel authorizations" are a step back. Not to mention all the data footprint that this process creates additionally.
Be prepared to have all your devices searched too. I'm talking about your photos, your online banking app, your emails, your Whatsapp logs, etc (just happened to an Australian I know) if they suspect you may be violating the terms of your visa. You can decline, but do you really want to cancel your trip, wait 12 hours for the next 15 hour flight back home?
(Edit: this is for non US citizens. US citizens don't need to answer any questions at entry, but be prepared to be taken aside for screening. You'll be asked to unlock your phone most likely, and if you refuse, they will confiscate it, but then you can enter.)
Also be prepared to answer questions about your religion... regardless of if you're a citizen or not. we finally have a religious test to enter the country..
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/26/muhamm...
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/13/us/citizen-nasa-engineer-detai...
For a foreign scholar performing a substantial lecture (like teaching a course), a J-1 visa is required. For a simple conference presentation, you should absolutely be able to get by on a B visa. Some new guy got confused. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Before Trump took office, customs was a pain in the ass for _citizens_ of this country. It will continue to be a pain in the ass for a long, long time.
Sorry, this doesn't parse for me. Why is that desirable?
Large orgs always have stories like this. Management and accountability are hard to scale and the problem is as true for the private sector as it is for public.
Customs is a straw man for the argument at large, but nevertheless the statement works: I prefer small government because I've seen the collassal fuckups they are capable of at scale.
(My favorite government entity is the USGS)
@fictioncircle: no reply available, so I'll address your question here: no, we should not ban large business. We should provide basic structure to support competition. Since government is not something we can frame competitively (we can't pick which government to use once one is established without substantial "frictions"), we should just keep them small and out of the way.
The same is true of businesses. Should we ban large corporations since the same logic applies?
Ban? No. But an end to bailouts would sure be a nice change. Large size should bring additional risk, not a governmental assurance that you'll never have to face any consequences for misbehavior.
Large businesses also cause colossal problems when unregulated. Consider the Great Depression and Great Recession, the two greatest economic calamities of the last century.
The answer to the problem of large institutions isn't to give some unfettered power.
Dude, seriously: customs needs no help to suck more at their job. This shit has always happened.
We love New York and want very much to visit some places we haven't had the chance in other trips, but my girlfriend doesn't speak english and something like that would be tremendously traumatic for us.
I know at least a friend who cancelled a trip to the USA fearing immigration problems.
http://www.frommers.com/tips/miscellaneous/the-travel-press-...
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/seek-foreign-flights-nyc...
Mr. Mills said the treatment Mr. Rousso experienced was unusual, but representative of a shift in how some border agents are approaching their jobs.
“Now they’re looking really hard for reasons to deny, instead of reasons to admit,” he said.
Googling for some data yields some results, but those seem to be big immigration numbers, rather than incidental short detentions for random travelers, so it's hard for me to draw any conclusion. Examples: http://cmsny.org/immigration-detention-behind-the-record-num... https://www.ice.gov/removal-statistics/2016
I think it's best to not get carried away just because a few people got detained. It seems a bit too little to call it policy shift for border control officers, at least as long it stays just incidental issue. FUD is always quick to spread and hard to fight against.
I don't care if it was done under Obama too, it doesn't bless it and shouldn't make it okay with liberals.
Trump is still worthy of criticism by association because of his immigration policies clearly back this kind of behavior. And Obama is too if he condoned this.
[Immigration attorney Jason] Mills said the treatment Mr. Rousso experienced was unusual, but representative of a shift in how some border agents are approaching their jobs.
"Now they’re looking really hard for reasons to deny, instead of reasons to admit," he said.
CBPs are triggered by the word "work" and "get paid". For example, when you come to volunteer on a WOOOFing farm, you're advised to say you've come for a learning experience rather than "to volunteer" (= CBP hears this as "to work"): https://wwoofusa.org/how-it-works/#will-wwoof-help-me-get-a-...
This myopic view is foolish and needs to die.
Except the Agent (who has probably never met an academic) didn't realise this and incorrectly (although understandably) concluded that the Mr. Rousso was working while on a tourist visa. Especially since Mr. Roussos speaking fee is probably the equivalent of a few days work for the customs agent
This is probably a simple mix-up that escalated because of a clash of cultures (both national and educational).
If people are loudly concerned about competition for jobs, address it with employment taxes on workers that are not residents.
What basis is there for concluding that?
Also, apparently Rousso has been traveling to the US for years, presumable sometimes in the same circumstances, without a problem.
Twenty minutes would be indicative of a simple mix-up. 10 hours is honestly just kind of strange (think of how many people in the escalation process didn't understand the rules or didn't care) and IMO indicates a pretty serious problem.
See this story related to the UK for example: https://webdevlaw.uk/2016/08/22/uk-conference-speaker-visa/
In fact, the UK appears to require a different visa for this purpose. (And it's not clear to me from a couple of things I've read that the Tourist Waiver Program covers paid engagements in the US arranged in advance--though there is a Business Waiver Program.)
Getting paid to speak at a conference can definitely raise issues if you're used to just getting a standard visa for tourism or just attending a conference.