From slavery to the Chinese exclusion act to Jim Crow to the Japanese internment camps to the patriot act. It's hard to make the case we were anything but.
What has changed recently is technology collapsing the world into a single blob of information, and that aspect gets worse every year.
Despite the headline on this article you still have way more freedom and specifically freedom of speech in the US than the rest of us.
The law works differently at the border, especially for non-citizens. Tourists don't have any legal right to get in. You may argue that the guards should be kinder and I would agree.
The historical examples you mention involve racism and slavery that were terrible but also the global standard at the time.
The Patriot Act is scary, but it doesn't seem much better elsewhere in the Anglosphere or in Europe. Say something impolitic loud enough and you'll get in trouble anywhere.
> you still have way more freedom and specifically freedom of speech in the US than the rest of us
Depends on who "you" are.
There some some who are allowed to openly make tangible, if thinly veiled death threats to others without repercussions. Others can have their lives ruined over trivial things.
The "you"s who are not granted as much freedom of speech are aware of it and only express themselves among trusted people.
There is now an absolute fountain of criticism of the current administration, the USA itself, and the entire West coming from every demographic in the USA. This isn't a new thing or restricted to Trump. I don't see any mass arrests, chilling of media, or official propaganda making the rounds.
You are not looking. Law firms are targeted and silenced. Media is subservient. People absolutely do watch what they say for a large number of reasons.
The type of speech being policed is different, but it's absolutely happening.
Of course it lacked the mark on the anticommunism checkbox, but control of society and control of economy were checked. That's 50% of the fascist playbook.
There was probably some nationalism too. Stalin buried internatonalism quickly. They would inevitably bow to the Russian overlords. No shame about it. We were bowing to the USA in the West and we still are.
Anyway, was communism only a facade by the 70s and the 80s? In that case it was a fully fascist country. All of the East.
I'd like to hear from somebody who lived in those countries at that time.
Armed guards in 1980's East Germany open your luggage and poke through it by hand.
TSA employees in 2000's USA scan your luggage and poke through it with technology. For any reason or no reason, they can open it up and poke through it by hand, or ask for assistance from nearby policemen with guns.
Is there any moral difference? If so, what is it?
(Also, nitpick: The East Germans were Communists, not fascists.)
Yes, the moral difference is in the motivation and consequences.
We take into account motivation pretty often to evaluate morality not sure why you can't apply it here
TSA's purpose is prevent harm to other passengers (effectiveness is debatable but not the point), the east German border guards were there to keep control on what information the population could access and share
They are not the same thing even if the means look the same
Most morally mature people practice that sort of reasoning. They take into account intentions, likely consequences, the state of knowledge of those involved, and other complicating factors before coming to a conclusion.
Is it moral for an ambulance to cut through traffic, run red lights and break speed limits? Is the same moral for drunk teenagers?
There's no action (and by that I do mean action, not something abstract that involves multiple actions and choices) that won't be moral some times and immoral others. Intent is always to be accounted for. I'd be happy to have counterexamples if you have any in mind
Also pretty weird to see you infuse a sense of moral superiority to this website of all places
I went to Canada 10 years ago. When they asked why, I told them I was mailing a birthday gift to a Canadian friend and I wanted to be the one who had to pay any duties or taxes. They had me pull over and go inside. Where they asked the password for my phone and then took it. A couple hours later they came back and gave me my phone, charged me ~$100 and let me go through. When I got to my car I found that they had opened the package I was mailing and a number of things had been moved around, from which I concluded they had also searched my car.
i drove to Surrey to a UPS Store, resealed and shipped the package and returned to the border. The US Immigration officer asked why I was only in Canada for 30 minutes, I explained, he laughed and sent me on my way.
Moral of the story is that every country can and will search your stuff and detain you and often turn you back for no meaningful reason.
>Armed guards poked though his luggage. It's a slippery slope toward fascism.
Is it? Lack of rights at the border isn't "fascism", it's the norm. I don't think any country gives you 4th amendment (or similar) rights at the border, even liberal democracies.
Right. Fascism and Soviet Bloc-style communism are both "bad" in the sense that they have tended to produce authoritarian dictatorships that massively increase human misery. But other than that, they are not at all the same ideology.
The problem is with people labeling anything they dislike as "fascist". Surely we can admit it dilutes the actual meaning of the word by using it to refer to things that are, in-fact, not fascist?
They were not a democracy despite what they had in the name. They were also not fascist, which has nothing to do with what was in their name. They were actually not fascist, in the sense that they didn't follow the ideology called "fascism".
Fascism is a specific ideology invented in Italy in the early 20th century; it does not just mean any authoritarian dictatorship.
Yes, they were not fascist as an ideology. But I was pointing out the country was a democracy in name only which means whatever one calls themselves or claims to be are not necesarily rooted in reality.
You're correct about that, which is why my claim that they were not fascist has nothing to do with what was in their name or whether or not they claimed to be anything. It is based on the fact that in actual reality they did not follow the ideology of fascism.
You think you're being clever here. East Germany was essentially the USSR's particular brand of Authoritarianism. No one is making the claim that they were a democracy. Believe it or not, there is a difference between Fascism and Authoritarian Communism.
Strictly speaking, yes. It was a totalitarian communist state, though people often use "fascist" to mean any totalitarian state, even if fascism is only one of many ways a totalitarian state can be implemented.
> It was a totalitarian communist state, though people often use "fascist" to mean any totalitarian state
Indeed, but those people are wrong. It would be like calling Jerry Falwell an Islamist extremist. Maybe they are bad for vaguely similar reasons but it is still inaccurate.
Quibbling about the flavors about authoritarianism is like quibbling about the flavors of shit. "No no, this is pig shit not chicken shit, it's completely different in a way that is totally irrelevant to the person being forced to eat it."
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.
Alright, then what do you think I should call what used to be called “fascism” ? Since it is really quite a different thing from Soviet Block-style communism (even if both are bad!) and so could use a different word to describe it.
Authoritarian encompasses both Soviet Bloc-style communism as well as what I used to think was called fascism. However the other poster is claiming fascism now means both. So I need another word to describe the specific thing that I used to think was called fascism.
Yeah, I'm with your original definition. I think it's important to distinguish between left wing and right wing authoritarianism as they tend to be quite different.
The adjective "armed" in my topmost comment wasn't a technicality, it was the entire point of the anecdote. Do you really think I was saying that the TSA never searches luggage? Obviously the TSA searches a lot of luggage, the thing they don't do is carry guns while doing so.
Right, they have to call the guy with a gun over. Is the problem the luggage search, as in, the invasion of privacy? The explicit threat of force in the absence of immediate compliance? The assumption of guilt for the general populace? The ever-present security state continually looking to oppress?
Or is it “huh europe is weird they give their TSA agents guns instead of having the transport security and also airport police?”
There's some inspection in practically every transport hub when I travel. While I traveled internationally the most strict was in Germany. I really don't mind a lot - there are good reasons to be careful - but they had guards in full military gear and with automatic weapons (usually it's handguns and plain uniforms) which looked pretty intimidating, and that was the only time I had to actually turn on my laptop to show it's a working laptop and not some kind of trick. Maybe showing how strict and tough they are was the point. The worst inspectors I had were in London. They were exceedingly slow and had very unpleasant manners. Maybe just my luck. Never had any real problems though - worst thing they got a look on my underpants and power connectors, and sent me on my way.
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.
Those are all examples of police agencies with police powers. This is in contrast to TSA officers screening your luggage, who have no police powers and are not police.
To add another example to your list -- the TSA also has their own police (e.g. Federal Air Marshal Service), but they don't work the line screening your baggage.
They are not police either. They are just armed men at government service. TSA inspectors in particular are not armed, but that's immaterial - there are other armed government workers around that could be used if needed. Police is only a tiny part of government's armed forces. It is most visible because everybody seen the police drive around, but most people never saw DeptEd SWAT team, but that doesn't change the fact a lot of those exist and are around, just a bit out of sight.
This is what we get when the American right wing conflates the two terms on TV for years and years. Don't like the definition of a word? just change it.
If border officers being armed or inspecting luggage is a definition of fascism to you, you'd struggle hard to find a lot of non-fascist countries. I have my luggage inspected each time I travel, and a lot of security personnel in airports are armed - are all airports already fascist?
It was a lot more invasive than that in those days. The border agents would rifle through our groceries and occasionally things like dried meats or booze would magically go missing. Other times they would be officially confiscated, or customs levied.
Wonder what the "political correctness is bad" "nobody is allowed to crack jokes anymore" "cancel culture is out of control" crowd will say about this one...
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition. There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
My favorite thing about Wilhoit's Law is I worked with Frank Wilhoit for several years and still occasionally meet up with him. He's one of the most interesting and insightful people I know. He loves phrasing things in an unconventional way to encourage people to think about what's being said instead of thinking about the next thing they're about to say.
A little while ago Scott Alexander did a lengthy post about how Curtis Yarvin, aka Moldbug, has essentially backtracked on everything he ever said about tyranny and these days gleefully cheers on all the things he decried in his early writing. Yarvin's response was, essentially, "You actually believed that I believed that stuff? lmao, idiot. This was about power and now we have it, piss off." Yarvin is unusually candid compared to most commentators and so I wouldn't expect a similar response here, but that's what's happening.
I'm not a historian, but this reminds me a bit of the prelude to the French Revolution: a growing list of grievances against a ruling class by a population that feels abused, disenfranchised, and numerous.
Even if one expects to enjoy a sense of Schadenfreude were such a revolution/slaughter to occur, our staples of daily life (food, medicine, electricity, fuel) are distributed over such a geographically large network, that almost everyone on the country would suffer greatly.
When I grew up, I found history boring, and didn't understand why we were made to study it. I'd like to think it's partly because I was taught typical jingoistic rah-rah US history, but that's at best only part of the reason.
Anyway, even I, with my paltry education in history, can see the historical parallels. And here I am, versus an oligarchic class that had the opportunity for a world-class education, and surely knows at least as much history as I do. I wonder if they really believe that they've found the way to prevent the inevitable consequences this time, or if they just think that they'll have found some way out, possibly just having passed the buck to the next generation, before the consequences for them come to pass.
Yeah, I see a whole lot of media parallels to Nazi Germany, but the two historical analogues that really pop to mind for me are the French Revolution and the Breakup of Yugoslavia. Both of which ended in slaughter - the Napoleonic Wars for the former and ethnic cleansing for the latter. People are crying dictatorship now, but I don't see that being the ending here; rather, I see it as being war and death on a massive scale.
The other thing to remember about the French Revolution was that nearly all the revolutionaries who came to power during it were dead by the end of it. The folks who are crying "We're in power now, suckas!" are being extremely stupid. Power doesn't last long at times like this.
The other thing that scares me is that the best place to be in all those historical times of crisis was an ocean away from the place where the crisis starts. But that doesn't work today; we have weapons with global reach that can level whole cities in 30 minutes. If the U.S. disintegrates nowhere on earth is safe.
> If the U.S. disintegrates nowhere on earth is safe.
This is a very Hollywood action film way of seeing the world. In the case of an American civil war, it's unlikely that it will be fought using nuclear weapons, and in that case, it's unlikely that they would use any on say, Chile, or Australia.
That's not really the threat model. It's that the U.S. has played the role of policing the world's oceans and world's regional conflicts since WW2. If the U.S. descends into civil war, it will be too preoccupied with internal power struggles to continue to play that role. Many, many countries elsewhere in the world will take the opportunity to settle old scores and jockey for regional advantage. Meanwhile, the population in many countries is supported by food imports that can only be sustained while global trade can freely occur.
If you live in Chile, the main danger is not that the U.S. drops a nuke on you. It's that Pakistan (freed from fear of international condemnation) drops a nuke in India, which then can no longer export rice to Saudi Arabia, where revolt breaks out, which cuts off the flow of oil, which makes Chile's economy grind to a halt.
> Pakistan (freed from fear of international condemnation) drops a nuke in India
India is also a nuclear state, so this is pretty unlikely unless the wheels really come off the deterrence strategy. North Korea attacking South Korea perhaps, but even that seems unlikely as it would greatly anger NK's closest ally of China.
> That's not really the threat model. It's that the U.S. has played the role of policing the world's oceans and world's regional conflicts since WW2. If the U.S. descends into civil war, it will be too preoccupied with internal power struggles to continue to play that role. Many, many countries elsewhere in the world will take the opportunity to settle old scores and jockey for regional advantage. Meanwhile, the population in many countries is supported by food imports that can only be sustained while global trade can freely occur.
So it’s not the Hollywood action movie view of the world. It’s just the standard 2005 version of Pax Americana make-believe.
Meanwhile Israel has attacked Iran and its US ally said “we want to do that too”.
It's been interesting watching who actually places rule of law and liberty above partisanship -- the Cheneys, tellingly, or Bill Kristol, or the Cato Institute -- and who has cheerfully befouled every declared principle they held in the name of untrammeled power. There are a number of law professors who talked a good game about common law liberty when the bad guy was the EPA, but signed on with Trump I and II the second they realized that tyranny was going to work in favor of their chosen policy preferences. Deeply dispiriting.
Yeah, going back and telling 2000 me and 2012 me that the Cheneys and Mitt Romney would become the conscience of the Republican party would have been interesting.
Who would you say was the conscience of the Republican party in 2012? What were they arguing for? Serious question, not American, follow their politics from afar.
McCain is probably who a lot of people would name. I disagreed with him about a lot of policy specifics, but do think he was genuine in wanting to do right by voters and the nation.
I'd argue that republicans lost their conscience with Nixon. It doubly got worse with Reagan.
Democrats lost their conscience with Clinton.
The last republican president with a clear conscience was probably Bush Sr. He was also crucified for it (hence the single term). He foolishly let reason about running a government get in the way of party bluster and that ended his career.
Carter was the last democrat president with a conscience and he also was lambasted for it.
Unfortunately in the US, principles and conscience haven't resulted in party success in the last 50 years.
But there's a silver lining. Democrats have been mostly true to their ideas.
And the difference is really striking.
Once Republicans got power, they immediately forgot basically ALL their ideals: small government, States rights, adherence to law, budget discipline, etc.
Just because who he voted for got the power, does not mean Yarvin got the power.
"Me Yarvin, Me powerful now". Is not true. What power does he think he has.???
The real question is, what has to happen before these people 'learn', or 'understand' that they were duped. What would it take for them to really grasp how they were played? Like all those Germans that shrug, 'I didn't know'.
Yarvin tells Scott that today’s populist right is too weak to fear, while the real authoritarian danger comes from the prestige-driven institutions that already steer American life. His shift since 2008 isn’t a sell-out but a recognition that the fuel of mass democracy has run low and that the managerial regime’s ongoing failures are the greater evil.
The whole “political correctness is so bad that we need to elect the current regime” crew only ever really wanted to feel aligned with power and are more or less indifferent to what that power does so long as they are periodically made to feel reassured that they are on the right side of it.
Thinking political correctness is bad does not necessarily put you in the "political correctness is bad" camp. I think political correctness is often bad, but I am not part of that "camp", i.e. people who irrationally hate things that they use "political correctness" as a broad disparaging label for.
The "real" Mads Mikkelsen should fly into the US with the meme on his phone and post the bald JD Vance on his social media before his flight. He'll have the honor of being the second Mads Mikkelsen to be deported by this snowflake administration.
Did you hold that attitude while complaining about cancel culture? Or is asking for more evidence something that is only necessary when it happens to your political opponents?
I'm a man of the left who thinks cancel-culture stinks and have campaigned against it for years, including warning those on "my side" (who you wrongly call my political opponents) that one day the boot would be on the other foot.
I condemn cancel-culture full stop whether its the right-wing mcarthyism of the fifties or the leftist bullies of the last decade.
I'm pretty sure there is a free speech crowd that was serious about this; I just don't think it's as big as it is portrayed, maybe 5% of the US population at most. No one likes Free Speech when they are on the receiving end, but you learn to tolerate it.
Based on decades of experience with my family: it's only political correctness when other people do it. When they do it, it's just common decency, common sense, family values, etc.
And as far as the original story, individual border agents should absolutely not be doing this to people because they have a meme on their phone, doubly so one where Vance shared a version of it himself. There is straight up no justification for this.
Dark days for the values the US professes to represent.
Note that they said "professes to represent" (emphasis mine). What the US professes to represent and what it actually represents for various people aren't totally unrelated, but it's a relationship that's always been pretty fraught.
and further that you're intending to use it as a burn on Trump and his government?
Regardless of what you think about them and Neo-Nazis/white supremacists, I think it's unfair because the policies of the current administration with regard to war, debt, environmentalism etc. evince a total disregard for the futures of children of any colour.
> I think it's unfair because the policies of the current administration with regard to war, debt, environmentalism etc. evince a total disregard for the futures of children of any colour.
> Reminder: Support of free speech requires support of the right to say things that you loathe by people you hate or you don’t support free speech.
No it doesn't. You're putting arbitrary limits to suit your views. You can support free speech for American citizens and also support using a foreigner's speech to determine whether or not we allow them into the country. That's just smart border policy. We should be vetting who we allow into our country, and using their speech is one way to vet them.
Obviously not allowing someone in over a bald JD Vance meme is stupid. But the idea that we have to allow all foreigners the same level of free speech without it affecting their chances of getting into the country is also stupid.
> We should be vetting who we allow into our country, and using their speech is one way to vet them.
Who is this "we" and what rules govern these "we"? What are the consequences for this "we" just up and violating the rules or throwing those rules out altogether to grift, stay in power and persecute those they hate?
Absolutely not. If you find out that the person who is trying to enter the country has made creditable threats to the USA, Sure, but that's also illegal for a citizen to do. Saying that the president is a poopy-head on Facebook doesn't count, and says nothing about what said person's behavior will be like once they are in our borders.
Pretty much where I stand. Some speech is criminalized for good reason (for example, planning to commit a crime). However, barring that, no speech should penalized. In particular, speech criticizing actions of the government or a government official should be especially protected.
The bar for when speech should be criminalized/penalized by the government should be very high.
For private entities I'm far more tolerate of censorship especially since it cuts both ways. Allowing or banning speech can directly impact a company's bottom line and should be regulated by customers choosing to interact with or avoid platforms.
Private entities are a completely different conversation. It drives me up the wall when people talk about "free speech" when they have a comment deleted on social media. (I'm not saying you said this btw)
The first amendment of the US constitution grants freedom of speech to all persons. Courts have interpreted that first amendment applies broadly, even to non-citizens.
It is "doubly so" because the border guard was wrong to judge the content as "lese majeste" on account of JD himself sharing it, and was wrong that "lese majeste" is applicable in America. The guard was wrong, and even if one doesn't agree with one of the reasons they were wrong because they don't share those values, the guard would still be wrong for the other reason. Therefore they were doubly wrong.
I know that the likes of fact checking and checking for hypocrisy draws eye rolls in the present environment (which in and of itself I find disappointing), but I do think an interesting variation on it would be to track what underlining principle is associated with any particular argument and to track adherence to principles over time. Of limited utility in an information ecosystem that's deeply indifferent to litigating disagreements on the basis of factual accuracy, but I feel like bsing your way out of inconsistent principles is at least harder.
>individual border agents should absolutely not be doing this
One of the underdiscussed aspects of an authoritarian regime is that it creates countless little tyrants that all feel empowered to exert whatever power they have in any way they see fit.
2006. O'Hare. I'm close to the front when exiting a UK > US plane. The 'agent' sees an implant (self-done years prior) in the back of my right hand. Calls it 'brutal'. I was directed to sit in a chair until way after the whole flight had disembarked. I was then questioned about my luggage, reasons for visiting.
Some years later "Pull the guy with tattoos". Full search.
Year or two after that, New York, pulled from the queue, directed to stand in a clear box. "Do not move your feet from those markings". My young daughter had to stand and watch.
Another trip. My passport photo did not fit their criteria. "Why did you shave your head?" .. "Because it was hot" .. repeat that whole interaction several times.
I am so so happy that I never have to visit the USA again and it's solely because of the 'people' assigned as 'guards'.
I had automatic weapons pointed at me and yelled at AFTER being waved through the crossing at the Ambassador bridge. 2010 era. I guess they wanted a second look.
Most border agents are brutal, regardless of the current administration. But things do seem to get worse when the Republicans/MAGA are in. I wouldn't even want to think about how they'll act if a big terrorist attack comes.
Frankly, I think this type of comment minimizes what is happening here. These anecdotes are nothing close to what is detailed in the story and they don't sound particularly tyrannical or even necessarily out of line. As an American, I have experienced similar things when traveling abroad in other western countries. What this article describes is much worse.
This is the type of comment I would expect from someone who tells women to go out in public in a potato sack to avoid unwanted attention, and if they choose not to, the harassment is their fault.
The dude lambasts the US because he has tattoos on his face and implanted metal in his body and was singled out by security. Security's job is to look for people who are out of the ordinary. Since most security people are not very bright, they're going to go after the shiny lure. But somehow, this becomes about sexualizing women? WT actual F??
People who put tattoos on their face are looking for attention. Attention is exactly what he got.
Obviously the guy has never traveled to Asia. He'd be singled out in every port and every station. Sounds like he lives a tidy life in No Europe. Where bald white guys with face tattoos and body armor are normal and only brown people are singled out in security lines...
Unfortunately, it’s pretty clear that there are strict quotas in place and border agents are expected to refuse entry to a certain number of people every day. The quotas are set by delusional xenophobes and thus aren’t remotely realistic, but border agents must find someone to kick out, so they latch onto any excuse. It’s truly sad and pathetic and evil.
This meme "what about cancel culture" is no longer an interesting point anymore. Certainly online, most of Trump's fans don't care. Just stop taking these kind of conservatives you don't know personally seriously and just assume bad faith by default.
I hate censorship in all its forms. And it should surprise no one that the Trump administration have matched and exceeded the Biden administration's levels of free speech infringement.
They usually resort to legalisms for cases like this: "The guy wasn't an American citizen so first amendment doesn't apply. The border guard was ENTITLED to harass him. America #1!!"
Every generation has its "free-speech advocates" moaning, "you can’t say anything anymore." The current panics: political correctness, cancel culture, jokes under siege, has the usual suspects asking, "What will the free-speech crowd say about this one?"
This is a perfect example of Bourdieu's idea of symbolic violence and the violence of the arbitrary.
The uncomfortable truth is, for many the thrill isn't in enforcing fair rules, or even unfair ones. The thrill is in the power to enforce arbitrary rules. The point isn't who gets punished, it's that someone can be, at a moment's notice, for no coherent reason. And the joy is in unpredictability, in knowing they can shift the rules under your feet and there's no one appeal to.
This is the logic sitting beneath every hand-wringing editorial and rage-bait thread about "cancel culture run amok." The goal is sovereignty, not consistency. It's about who gets to draw the lines and when they can redraw them. Arbitrary enforcement isn't a bug. It’s the feature.
The clever "gotcha" crowd falls flat when they imagine that, by exposing contradictions, they'll force a confession, a moment of logic, an admission, and surrender. But that moment never comes. When the point is arbitrariness, contradiction isn't a failure. It's the currency of power. Pointing it out only proves you're not the one with power.
What will the "PC culture" critics say? Probably what they’ve always said. Remember, it's not about the arguments. It's about who gets to arbitrate, who gets to punish, and who gets to laugh last.
Yes, we hear versions of this conceit a lot, but how does it play out? Like where exactly is this arbritrary power exercised in your mind? Where is the payout? In each discrete call out or critique? Is the world in your view just full of a million tyrants fighting for various fiefdoms, or is there just one collective bad faith actor here? How can you marry here both the overarching individualism which would make this rendering possible with collective phenomena we actually see with this stuff?
This really is just what we have been hearing from the cultural right for a long time, masked as a kind both-sides/human-nature take. It sounds good, in that it gives something like general principle to subsume all the instances. But it just doesn't really make sense in the actually existing world. How could any given side even know they are the new hegemon, the new line-drawers, at any given moment. At what point are they rewarded with regard to the influence they wield? What does it even look like? Do you have examples? Sovereignty implies a concentration of something like power, but your very point here seems to decentralize sovereignty to the point of it being unrecognizable as such. Its like taking something very individual and trying to stretch it across everything in awkward way.
Just simply: how does this actually work? When does whatever side thats on top actually get to feel good, actually get to be the sovereign?
It sounds like you're asking what is the scope of this sovereignty?
In my experience, the scope is the establishment of a status hierarchy.
We love to put ourselves in a privileged position. In most internet discussion, the status hierarchy extends throughout the duration of the encounter. In most Thanksgivings, the crazy uncle goes away at the end of the night, in marriages, it extends for the duration of the relationship. It's fundamentally tied to the social engagement.
Yes gotcha. But just try to think it through carefully: does this really capture what is going on in these many instances? There is an implication here maybe that you have been on the short end of some interactions in the past, did you really feel subjugated by some abstract power then? Did it really seem like the person on the other end was getting some satisfaction, some giddy kickback from their "sovereignty"?
Does it not feel at least a little juvenile to think like this, if you look at it critically, maybe from a little more the outside than you seem to be? These kind of pat armchair psychologies that answer in one breath the phenomena of culture, of human interaction feel just extremely schoolyard to me... but I guess ymmv.
At the very least: its unfalsifiable; one could easily go the other way and say "people love to belong to a group, and being able to police another group's language/jokes/etc is the best mechanism for reinforcing their belonging".
To picture you and your smug interlocutor as ever placed in some asymmetric structure where they are the king and you are the pauper belies the staying power of these controversies, the clear struggle they manifest. You make it sound so much like there never even is a battle, just spontaneous winners and losers.
I don't want to come off as harsh, but what you are arguing for is the logic of a loser, in the technical sense. Its asserting a projection you/others have of perceived intellectual enemies as a kind social theory for everything. It dooms you to fatalism you just dont need to have! Humans, for better or worse have a capacity for much more complicated motives. You do not need to "Mean Girls" the entire world!
It really does capture what's going on because for decades I used to be the aggressor. That was exactly the mentality I held along with people from that group. Like recognizes like then and now.
I'm curious though, you seem to have not experienced this sort of internet domineering?
Wonder what the "political correctness is bad" "nobody is allowed to crack jokes anymore" "cancel culture is out of control" crowd will say about this one
As someone who would be closer to that side than the opposite: this is terrible and unacceptable.
As a deplorable myself, I disagree with this decision and think it's ridiculous - but I do find the nature of it quite funny still.
Also remember that JD Vance himself has plenty of air time laughing at these memes, and they aren't considered threatening like calling out Biden's cognitive decline with memes making fun of it.
The overall response to memes of this nature are very different on either side. One side wants to censor the entire internet and penalize people for daring to share something politically incorrect, while the other caught an outsider who may harbor threatening sentiments about our nation, with the intent to harm - although I sincerely don't think that's the case here.
Part of the irony here is that you'll more likely find a right-winger with more JD Vance memes on their phone than this guy.
The mass-censorship has a much deeper weight to it than inconveniencing 1 tourist, and I think it's a little surprising this needs to be explained.
In this case, we have a report that someone was denied entry over an image of JD Vance.
From the same report, we have the facts that JD Vance approved of the meme the image was taken from, using it himself; and that the image provoked border control agents into interrogating the person about his ties to "right-wing extremism". Not usually something you'd expect from someone about whom the only thing you know is that he appears to be criticizing right-wing politicians.
It seems safe to conclude that politics weren't a concern. If you wanted to diagnose what happened, this looks more like the agents were looking to turn people away and seized on whatever they thought they could make work.
While the US has the largest prison population, it ranks lower in per capita incarceration rates compared to some other nations. These are El Salvador, Rwanada, Turkmenistan and Cuba.
Is this the visitor's own take on what happened? Or did they tell him "you're denied entry because of your JD Vance meme"? Per the article they also asked him a bunch of other things like about right wing terrorism. Maybe his answers sucked? Maybe he was being evasive?
There was the case a few months ago of a Canadian lady being detained and denied entry "for no reason", and then it turned out she wanted to work in the US while on a tourist visa, and also was attempting to evade border patrol by flying to Mexico and entering via the southern border instead of the northern border or at an airport, where she had previously been denied admittance.
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, being extremely combative with the initially polite officer, refusing to provide identification, refusing to exit the vehicle 10 times when the officer was attempting to lawfully arrest him, and then being tasered.
So what circumstances are needed for you to believe something actually happened, besides several examples of the exact same behavior from the administration ?
One example where you don't find out that yes there was actually more to the story would be a start. This isn't such an example: CPD says he admitted to previously using drugs in the US which is a federal crime.
The multiple examples of legal residents being detained for their Pro-palestinian activism?
So the Norwegian's account can't be trusted but the CPD's can? Why?
Also most drugs are not federal crimes and it sounds like he wasn't arrested for it, so there's no record and therefore no reason to prevent lawful entry.
Let's ask the Norwegian if there was in fact a picture of his drug paraphernalia on his phone. That should help us resolve the issue. If there was that picture, it would be totally weird that he only mentioned his JD Vance meme and not the drug picture
> It comes after an Australian writer claimed he was turned away from the US border after being grilled on his views on the Gaza conflict and articles he wrote about pro-Palestinian protests.
> Alistair Kitchen, 33, boarded a flight from Melbourne to New York to visit friends on June 12 when he was pulled to one side by a Customs and Border Protection officer during a layover in Los Angeles.
> He was detained for 12 hours at Los Angeles International Airport before being put on a flight back to Melbourne.
> Mr Kitchen claimed a customs officer told him he was being detained because of his views on the pro-Palestinian rallies that took place on campus at the New York university last year.
> 'I was interrogated about my beliefs on the crisis in Gaza. I told him what I believe: that the war is a tragedy in which all parties have blood on their hands, but which can and must come to an immediate end,' he wrote in The Sydney Morning Herald.
Was this drugs too? Or maybe he did something else DHS can blame instead of owning their behavior?
So again, how many times does this government have to police thought before you admit that is what they are doing, and how does that not directly conflict with your free speech ideology?
I suspect we are in a cycle in which I provide more examples and you find reasons to not believe them, because doing so would conflict with your world view.
Has the professor shared what their messages actually were? This is the same exact issue that this thread is about - it's impossible to judge this without any kind of detail except the outcome.
The messages were described by the source in your article “reflect[ing] hatred toward Trump and can be described as terrorism”, and “hateful and conspiratorial messages”. Maybe they were? Who knows?
You mean the Canadian who went to the southern border to "get a new work permit" after securing a new job? Yeah, real sketchy that, applying for a work permit to work in the country.
You secure your work permit at a consular office in Canada, you don't try to enter the US on one type of visa with the intent to convert it to a work visa once you're in. That's called preconceived intent and is against the rules.
She was not on a visa. Believe it or not Canadians can travel to the US without a visa. She also had a lawyer who advised going to the border. It was all 100% legal and standard practice.
Trying to enter via the Mexican border after being denied entry at the Canadian border and not first resolving that with the Embassy is very far from standard practice and if her lawyer actually recommended that she should seek a better one.
To be fair something that makes the news isn't necessarily indicative of the median experience either. If US and China both looked through 0.1% of traveler's phones, that'd be both compatible with horror stories making the news, and widespread anecdotes of "weird, never happened to me".
Where does it say that? Your source only says profiles need to be public
Moreover your description is slightly misleading because it only applies to "all applicants for F, M, and J nonimmigrant visas", which notably excludes tourism visas (B-2). The visas listed all seem to be academic related, presumably because the administration wants to crack down on woke ivy league students or whatever.
> "THE US EMBASSY in Dublin is tightening its visa requirements, saying that future applicants looking to visit the country will be required to divulge “all social media usernames or handles of every platform they have used from the last five years” on their visa application form."
Not in my experience. They check your passport and your visa. Didn’t go anywhere near my phone.
I wouldn’t be sharing Winnie the Pooh memes on WeChat though.
Not when I went there. I needed a lot of paperwork for the visa at their embassy, and to surrender my passport for a few days, and a signed statement from my employer that I was not a journalist of any kind.
I got in. I was sent to some form of secondary screening, but they apparently couldn't find anybody who could speak English, so they just let me in.
Edit: I'm from a rich western country, in case it matters for anybody getting an understanding of who gets treated what way.
I don't recall them asking for any social media at any point. But I don't have Facebook, tiktok, instagram, snapchat, grinder, myspace, or other muggle social media.
I of course wouldn't know if they tried to find my profiles.
BTW not having profiles on mugg^W normie social media may be sometimes considered a red flag by itself, so I keep e.g. a reasonable Facebook profile, without posting anything.
YMMV but at least for US entry just listing GitHub (it's one of the options in the ESTA application) hasn't caused any "random" inspections for me so I'm not sure how much of a flag it really is on its own.
I did get a weird interaction in China fwiw. Let in fine but at one point i sat down to have lunch at a restaurant and 2 English speaking police officers sat down at my table and started asking if i was doing well etc. I just chatted making sure not to say anything negative about the government, talked about tourist sites and they left, they were fine, no issue. Just a weird interaction.
I guess it's a routine part of China's paranoia. They definitely do do weird things to check if tourists are causing trouble in some way i guess. I imagine that sort of interaction alone would scare off trouble makers and it's probably effective honestly.
Contrary to common belief, it's fine to say negative things about the government in this case, as long as you are not Chinese. They may argue with you (or laugh at you for some even weirder reasons) and you both may have an unpleasant conversation, but that's it.
> I guess it's a routine part of China's paranoia. They definitely do do weird things to check if tourists are causing trouble in some way i guess.
I’m guessing you actually did something suspicious or illegal without realizing it.
A common and simple example of this is taking pictures where it’s technically forbidden — airports, military buildings (these aren’t always obvious to visitors), religious sites, etc.
Another example would be interacting with a person of interest. This could be a Chinese person that they are watching, or a foreigner that they are keeping tabs on (e.g., embassy staff that they suspect of being an agent).
As a tourist, you probably wouldn’t notice these things or even be aware that they are a red flag.
They have never gone through my phone, although I guess if they wanted to nothing would stop them. The immigration agents don't even ask questions most of the time, heck, I don't even here them speak on most of my entries.
They don't ask any questions when you leave either, unless you overstayed your visa. In that case, they just ask you to come back with money to pay the fine. It's actually kind of funny: they don’t detain you or anything, just politely tell you to find an ATM and come back when you have cash to pay the fine.
This happened to my wife in Japan when we were trying to board the second try of our flight cancelled the day before. I told them "we don't have any Japanese money, and anyways, this was Delta's fault, so just get them to pay." We sat around for a half hour while they got Delta to pay her fine.
Do they not have ATMs at the airport? Seems unnecessarily risky to not just take the opportunity to pay the fine as quickly as possible - visa overstays can easily end in detention in many (especially Asian) countries and not just in the US.
And while the delay might have been the airline's fault and possibly you could have a civil claim against them for damages incurred it is still your responsibility to have a valid Visa and not overstay it and also your responsibility to pay any fines for it (which you may or may not be able to get reimbursed).
They should have taken care of this when they brought us back into Japan after the flight was canceled (they didn’t catch it when the re admitted her into Japan and the visa was invalidated on her way out since it was single entry, and the flight was to the states so most passengers were visa waiver). And anyways, they were so apologetic that I didn’t really doubt that the Delta Japanese ground crew would just take care of it.
The really sad story is that the flight was canceled a second time after that drama, and we were really feeling a lot of emotions over that debacle. Suffice it to say we’ve sworn off delta for awhile.
I don't know about about the specifics in China but amnesty for short overstays if they don't catch you on the street for it but you are actually trying to leave is not uncommon in the region. Longer overstays especially when not self-reported can easily end in detention though.
This was a paper work snafu, she was re-admitted into Japan by immigration officers after her visa was invalidated (because it was single entry and they cancelled the flight after we went through emigration). So it’s not like the violation was intentional or even avoidable.
China gives you a ten year unlimited entry visa, so it’s pretty hard to screw that up.
I'm sure it happens, and they also don't systematically check phones when entering the US, it's probably exceedingly rare and I've never witnessed it despite travelling to the US 3 times since Trump got elected.
Case in point this is only the 2nd story ever to come out about someone being detained / refused entry for content that was on their phone since Trump is president.
Nope, they barely even talk to you. I've crossed the Chinese border literally hundreds of times, mostly from Hong Kong. They usually don’t ask anything and if they do, it's just a basic "What's the purpose of your visit?" I’ve never had my bags searched or been sent to secondary inspection. Even crossed with one barefoot once (long story) and wasn't even asked about it.
In contrast, my worst border experiences have been in the U.S. and Canada (and I've traveled to over 30 countries).
In the US, I was nearly denied entry at SFO while on a valid TN visa simply because I didn't have a business card with me. The officer also referred to my wife as a "Chinese bitch" - within earshot (this happened during the Obama years). I had to let them handle my phone a bit to verify work emails, etc. But they didn't really search through it beyond that.
In Canada, I was sent to secondary inspection, had my bags searched, and was asked to show the photos on my phone. I was questioned for over an hour and they never told me the reason for it. It felt like they suspected me of smuggling drugs because the guy kept asking me what I had for breakfast... I'm Canadian btw and don't do drugs.
> They usually don’t ask anything and if they do, it's just a basic "What's the purpose of your visit?" I’ve never had my bags searched or been sent to secondary inspection.
FWIW in the US you usually also don't get asked more than that (not including questions on you Visa / visa exempt application) and searches are not standard procedure that everyone goes through.
Should I start putting my phone in checked baggage? Is that allowed with the batteries and stuff? I guess I can carry a cheap older smartphone with a burner number for the actual flight.
Not in any airport I have been to. Usually it's landing -> immigration (border control) -> baggage claim -> customs (just walk through if you have nothing to declare) -> exit.
Before entering authoritarian countries, you should factory reset the phone, add a minimum contact list, and have a process for restoring what you need from the cloud. No need to store phone in luggage.
Also better to leave the laptop at home, if you don't want to wipe it.
He was placed in a cell before they found the Vance image. He also said the border guard didn’t like that image or an image of him with a wooden pipe.
I don’t doubt that it’s possible he was denied because of the Vance image and that in itself says something terrible about the current state of affairs.
But I think it’s more likely that he was stopped based on some other red flag like not having a return ticket and denied because of that.
When I say it’s possible, I don’t think that it’s the official CBP policy, but I have had enough interactions with power tripping cops to believe that it’s possible that the kid was disrespectful to the wrong guy. Customs agents have wide latitude in determining who can enter, and I could see a situation where an already angry agent saw the Vance thing, got even angrier and said you’re outta here.
Sure, maybe. But there’s clearly an entire other side of the story along with the Norwegian government warning other travelers, they must have their documents on them.
The situation could certainly have been escalated by a single officer in a bad mood but there must have been some flag that caused him to be pulled aside in the first place. That doesn't mean there was any real wrong doing on the part of the guy but with many of other similar claims against the US border agents mistreating EU citizens you do see some reason why they might have been spooked if you dig a little deeper. E.g. anything that could give CBP the idea that you intend to seek work in the US is just asking for trouble.
Don't make excuses for this abuse. The administration now in power in the US has been very clear - they oppose free speech and do not respect the constitution or Bill of Rights.
Important to note that the only source of information we have right now is the deported person's account of events.
He does say he was detained PRIOR to the picture being found. Being detained if far more relevant than being asked about a photo.
It's also important to note that Border Control will not tell you WHY you're being denied entry, so the person ascribing it to the meme is speculating based on being asked about it.
Not in the United States. Jails are operated by cities or counties and people can be incarcerated for up to a year in jail. Prisons are operated by the state and house people convicted of felonies (sentence >1 year).
> A jail holds people for shorter periods of time (for example, less than a year) or for pre-trial detention and is usually operated by a local government, typically the county sheriff.
> A prison or penitentiary holds people for longer periods of time, such as many years, and is operated by a state or federal government. After a conviction, a sentenced person is sent to prison.
It's not really nitpicking because any sort of pretrial detention is technically "jailed without trial", and pretrial detention isn't some sort of tool only used by fascist regimes. So far as I can tell, he was pulled aside for further questioning and ultimately refused entry, but the authorities didn't go out of their way to detain him for longer than necessary. No, I'm not excusing the government's behavior. Refusing someone entry for possessing a political cartoon is still bad, but "jailed without trial" is just inflammatory wording.
If some protester got arrested for protesting, the reasonable thing to do is to call it just that, not "protester jailed without trial for protesting".
Even worse, you can omit “political” meme - he may be a political figure but as far as I can tell it has no relation to any policies…it’s just a silly picture.
Isn't the politics the entire point though? US federal law enforcement isn't jailing people over funny pictures; they're jailing people over funny pictures *of powerful government officials*. It's an instantly-recognizable trait of a certain kind of country: like "you can't refer to Xi Jinping as "Pooh", you go to jail for that", or "you can't talk about the King of Thailand's body weight, you go to jail for that"—it's a archetype of *that* kind of place. Everyone knows what it means. "You can't make silly pictures of Vice President Vance—you go to jail for that".
The guy wasn't jailed, he was detained until he could be put on a return flight the same day.
That he was refused entry because of the picture is his speculation and likely not the full truth because they only found the picture after already pulling him aside.
There is certainly questionable behavior by the CPB here if the description is correct but lets not make conclusions that aren't backed by facts.
The context: He smoked weed in California, where it's legal, years ago.
This guy isn't a drug trafficker. He's not doing meth or heroin, never did. He smoked weed, in a legal state (as millions of Americans do on a daily basis).
Then he made the critical mistake of handing over his phone to be searched, rather than flying home (!), upon which advanced creepy software (probably developed and funded by some of this very crowd) flagged this 'federal crime' of smoking weed while in Cali.
So yes, the meme is a red herring, but it's distracting from a thing that's still incredibly fucked up.
It's still a demented justification to turn someone away from the country. "You can come here, buy weed in a majority of states, and face no fear of repercussions... Until you try and come back in". That's nutty. It's batshit.
And, the real reason he was brought in - as brought up by the Immi officers - was that he was doing journalism at one of the anti-genocide protests.
> > it's not practical or moral to have foreign partisans participating in our politics that way.
That would be called 'freedom of assembly', which is a universal human right (see Article 20 of the UNDHR). Highly moral, most practical, and widely recognized as such.
Sorry. No. The idea that you have a right of assembly in a foreign country is completely absurd. I don't know which line of thinking convinced you otherwise but any country that actually chooses to allow that can't exist for very long.
The higher-weighted fact is that the USA has a brutal double assassination of opposition politicians (a senator and a house representative along with their spouses), and no one is talking about that, zero mentions on hacker news. A guy detained for a Vance meme? Yeah, keep your attention on that. You live in a fascism already.
I think there's been plenty of discussion of the above, and it often dovetails with immigration enforcement and the pretty reasonable assumption that the masked kidnap squads are law enforcement impersonators in much the same way the assassin was, and the two types of situation are different manifestations of the same threat model (volent actors working at the behest of the autocrat but without necessarily being agents of the state).
A state (not federal) house representative and her husband were murdered.
A state (not federal) senator and his wife were attempted murdered, but both survived and are expected to recover.
Your comment frames it as if 2 members of federal congress were assassinated which would have been a much bigger deal. State politicians being killed is still shocking and tragic, but try to be precise in your language as to not mislead.
This is surprising to me. Are you implying/saying it's no big deal that 2 elected officials were shot (one killed) because they are "only" state-level politicians?
This is not a good sign for democracy in the US. I think a healthy response would be protests, investigations, state and federal "comissions" looking into domestic political terrorism, etc. A whole lot of consequences. Instead there is nothing.
In contrast, in Brazil (not even a best example of a healthiest democracy) the assassination of a city councilwoman (city! not even state!) has been a dominant story in politics for many years and has never completely fallen out of public attention. It's been close to a decade!
I'm not one to quickly say "fascism" or to spell out doom but even to me this is a crystal clear sign of a system starting to fail...
It's a big deal, just not as big a deal as misleadingly implied. "The capitol building was bombed!" (implying Washington DC) vs "The capitol building [of Alaska] was bombed!" would both be big deals, but one is a much bigger deal than the other.
Cowardly, weak, and pathetic are the only attributes you can use to describe this behavior. I'm not saying this in order to "get a rise" or "inflame" a discussion here, but how can anyone really justify this?
Could be. The only information I can find about this is that the young man told his local newspaper what happened and then other news outlets just regurgitated the young man's account of what happened with zero fact-checking or corroborating evidence. Many people are taking one man's word as truth. I'd like more proof before coming to any conclusions.
Most likely, this wasn’t official policy — just a low-paid border agent on a personal power trip.
Give a man a uniform, and watch him turn tyrant. The Stanford Prison Experiment says hello.
The real problem is that the US system allows individuals with minimal training and virtually no oversight to wield unchecked power over travelers' lives.
It's anticipatory obedience, "a situation where one attempts to predict expectations others (particularly superiors) have, without explicit communication, and to fulfill (or exceed) those expectations.", see https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/anticipatory_obedience
This is really just the essence of bureaucracy - which is the problem with these rules that sounds fine if you don't think about the implementation of them.
Trump himself probably wouldn't care (which is why he thinks these rules are fine - he knows what should be a jailable offense) but of course the bureaucracy needs to make rules that any of the thousands of border guards can follow. The outcome is a bullwhip effect and you get this (or worse).
Going to the USA as a tourist might be the most stupid action that one can make at this time. Unless you have a dying mother or father, there is absolutely no reason to visit this country. It reminds me of the tourists that used to go to North Korea for fun some years ago, it never was a good idea.
In 2023, when tourism rates had yet to fully recover from Covid, over 66 million people visited the US from abroad. I don't have more recent statistics, but I'm going to assume that the number is the same or higher this year.
Out of that population which could fill a decent-sized country, how many people have been treated so unfairly as the one in this article? How do those stats compare with other countries, and the inevitable abuses that occur in any vast bureaucracy?
It's possible to oppose the current US administration and still retain your rationality.
Sure, but if they’re detaining people because the officers are personal fans of JD Vance those ICE officers need to be fired. Like now. It’s unacceptable whether it’s 1 in a million or 1 in 10.
> Sure, but if they’re detaining people because the officers are personal fans of JD Vance those ICE officers need to be fired. Like now.
Pedantic, but if it is at entry rather than chasing people down afterwards, its probably CBP, not ICE. (CBP also does some chasing down afterward, too.)
Zero, but that's not the same question. If something I think is unacceptable happens at a low rate, the fact that I think it's bad doesn't mean it's necessarily rational to change one's travel plans because of it, if the rate is low enough.
If I go to Iceland, there is some nonzero chance I'll be killed in a surprise volcanic eruption, but I wouldn't let that deter me from visiting Iceland.
The relatively high violent crime rate in US cities which was already present before the current administration is already a much more real reason not to visit the US than authoritarian border guards, although I'd argue even that would be a bit exaggerated.
I was curious about how likely deaths actually are from Volcanoes in Iceland. It looks like 15 deaths in the last 500 years with an unknown number possibly in the hundreds in the 500 years before that. But also ~9000 deaths due to famine in from farmland and livestock destruction.
some nonzero chance I'll be killed in a surprise volcanic eruption
Why would you compare an unpredictable natural risk with one stemming from human behavior and government policy? This is like saying speeding limits are a bad idea because some people are killed by lightning.
The point of analogies isn't to claim that the two things being compared are exactly identical, it's to draw attention to the ways in which they're similar that are relevant to the point being discussed.
By the way, I never said anything like "power tripping pro-MAGA border guards are okay because there are volcanoes in Iceland", so your lightning vs. speed limits analogy isn't relevant.
Nonsense. Your presence in Iceland or not has no influence on whether a volcano there erupts, whereas a sharp drop in tourism is a market signal that may influence policy in the future (not necessarily under the same administration).
> Going to the USA as a tourist might be the most stupid action that one can make at this time. Unless you have a dying mother or father, there is absolutely no reason to visit this country. It reminds me of the tourists that used to go to North Korea for fun some years ago, it never was a good idea.
did not claim that one has a moral obligation to avoid the US, but rather tried to claim that it was stupid to do so from a purely rational perspective.
It’s the latter point I disagree with. People who avoid the US due to the possibility of personal harm by border guards are being irrational (unless perhaps they’re prominent pro-Palestinian activists).
I never said there’s no reason not visit the US. Avoiding it as a political protest against the current administration is a perfectly decent reason! But that’s not what was originally claimed.
Conversely, a sharp drop in tourism to Iceland is a market signal that a something along the lines of "volcano has exploded" has happened (what with there currently being few other reasons for such a drop), and "a tourist was killed when a volcano exploded" has a non-zero chance of modifying Iceland's tourism policies.
Because when we use a natural risk, we remove the fact that it's actual policy put forth and implemented by humans. Otherwise, the ideology will always be brought into question, while volcanos don't have an ideology that can conflict with itself.
> The relatively high violent crime rate in US cities which was already present before the current administration is already a much more real reason not to visit the US than authoritarian border guards, although I'd argue even that would be a bit exaggerated.
As a tourist doing tourist things in the US, your risk of being involved in a violent crime is notably lower than an average US citizen, and your risk of being involved with a border guard is notably higher.
> In 2023, when tourism rates had yet to fully recover from Covid, over 66 million people visited the US from abroad. I don't have more recent statistics, but I'm going to assume that the number is the same or higher this year.
World Travel & Tourism Council says international visitor spending is going to drop by $12.5bn this year (down 22.5%).
Ask people who have tried going to Canada from the US how welcoming border guards can be at their ports of entry. Say the wrong thing or try to cross with the wrong thing (in my friend's case, it was a set of tools used to repair electronics) and they will try to jam you up and deny entry.
I've crossed into Canada multiple times and never had the guards comment on anything, personally? Was this a very recent thing and has there been a change in policy?
Just like US CBP, it depends on who you run into and the mood they are in. 10 years ago, I found cheap flights to Toronto from my city. When I got to Canadian Immigration, they asked, "Where are your guns?" and I said "I guess at home" just because it's a weird question that caught me off guard.
Canadian Border Guards then lectured me about responsible gun ownership, tore about my bags going "Since you don't keep track of your guns, let's find out if they are in your bags", went through my iPad movie content and finally was like "Ok, you are clear".
I've been back multiple times and since then, Scan PassportCheck ComputerSTAMP PASSPORT Welcome to Canada.
I'm an American citizen, and when I cross into Canada I'm greeted courteously and professionally. I've never been pulled to secondary screening and I've never had a hostile interaction.
However, when returning to the United States, even as a citizen (born, not naturalized), I have frequently faced questioning about my social graph, who specifically I have contacted, and things of that nature. I thought it was one dickhead guard in Vermont, but it keeps happening.
I've faced the repair tools things in Europe. No meanness besides taking most of them.
I managed to save a few by arguing how ineffective as weapons they would be and then watch as two security staff try their best to pinch each other with wire strippers.
Yup. They asked me what guns I had in the vehicle. Totally fair. I said none and expected they might want to search the vehicle, which would have been totally fair as well. But they weren't interested in that anymore, they started asking what kind of guns I and my passenger had at home. None, for me again, but my passenger admitted to having some at home 500 miles away. He later said he felt compelled to be honest because he didn't know what databases they might be hooked into. The border guard then began grilling him about the kinds of guns he had, what their purpose was, why he would own them, etc etc. Asshole invasive questions that served no purpose. I think the border guard just saw an opportunity to needle an American for being American. At least they let us through after that. They never searched the car, clearly they didn't have any legitimate concern about anything.
> Security at airports simply doesn't have this sort of power outside the US.
No qualms with your actual point, but immigration/customs is not the same thing as airport security, sorry but it's my pet peeve when people conflate them.
I doubt it's that high with loads of Canadians not visiting the US.
I planned last year to stop off in Hawaii and Seattle on the way from NZ to the UK this May, but in March this year I altered that and just did Vancouver instead as the stop-off.
I know several friends and colleages who have also done similar (even two didn't go to weddings of friends in the US).
You're exaggerating the significance of Canadians in US tourism statistics. NY and MA have larger populations than ON and QC, Canada's two largest provinces. Therefore, even "loads" is a relatively small number.
Then why are all the border states, towns and cities (and their elected representatives) begging Canadian tourists to come back, with endless advertisements, appeals to our historic friendship, temporarily re-naming streets ("Canada Street", really? Can't wait for the photo-op of an ICE raid happening there) and even silly incentives (like a 3-pack of free golf balls in one case)...?
Yeah, good luck downplaying the 12+ billion the US tourism industry is about to lose this year.
Hahahaha... we will get the run-off from people that no longer want to deal with your "border", I think we will be just fine.
Searching for projections seems to indicate that our tourism industry will definitely be growing:
Canadian tourism is expected to increase in 2025. Key points include:
Canadian travel demand surged by 61% year-over-year, reflecting growing interest in adventure and sustainable tourism.
67% of Canadians plan to travel more in 2025, with many prioritizing lesser-visited destinations.
Morocco and Egypt are increasingly popular among Canadian travelers seeking cultural immersion.
Solo travel is on the rise, with 1 in 4 Canadians planning their first solo adventure.
A devalued Canadian dollar could provide a significant boost to the sector by attracting more foreign visitors and their spending.
Canada's revenue in the Travel & Tourism market is predicted to reach US$17.42bn in 2025, with a steady annual growth rate of 2.25%.
Evolving domestic spending patterns are also contributing to measured growth in Canada's tourism industry.
Enjoy your fascist country - it is truly the "most free", right? Right?
My country is not fascist. You don't know what the word means, unsurprising given your immaturity.
Only something that's small, or in a recession, will grow 61% YoY.
And last time I visited Canada, this month, I was asked more questions on the Canadian side of the border than on the American one. Which is perfectly normal, given the fact that I had an American passport. Both interviews took 2-3 minutes, by the way. A lot of the sensational "news" are clickbait for the TikTok empty brain generation, who just swallows them hook, line and sinker.
Most people will never experience problems at the border, especially the kind who prepare and get informed ahead of time (I actually knew what items in what quantity I could bring back from Canada, and I did bring back beer for a friend, way above the 1L/person limit - the officer didn't even blink when I declared it). I have never had problems with border police or customs, even when I visited a couple of communist countries, maybe because I never lie to them, not even by omission.
As I said, stop measuring dicks with the US. It's a great country, just in a different way from Canada.
A lot of Canadian “tourism” isn’t of the stay in a series of hotels for two weeks variety. It’s cross the border to attend a concert or sporting event. Grab a bite to eat and stock up at Walmart/Costco/<insert favorite store here> before heading home. Sales at the Costco nearest the border with BC were down 20% at the same time Costco was seeing increased sales nationwide.
Nope, tourism is tanking. There are numerous stories about tourists being detained for little to no reason and eventually deported.
Travel warnings from various international orgs like Amnesty International and other governments have been mounting since 2019. It also doesn't help when the president attacks the country that makes up a large portion of tourist like Canada.
We used to take two annual trips to the US, and cross the border every 4-6 weeks to shop, eat, and fill up our gas on the way home.
We haven't been there since this current administration took over, and have no plans on it until something changes.
Trumps comments regarding Canada, and the whole "51st state" rhetoric triggered the decision, but these stories absolutely play a part in it. I'm not about to put myself, or my family, in a position where someone might be detained for anywhere from days to weeks for no reason.
There's a big, beautiful world out there, and plenty of countries who are happy to have us and take our tourist dollars, all without me having to worry about getting detained for silly pictures on my phone. It's a pretty easy decision if you ask me.
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...
Places are filled with people... 70 million of whom wanted this nonsense and another 90 million too apathetic to vote, so willing to accept whatever the incoming administration would be.
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.
Forcing you to hand your phone password and expose all your personal intimacy, or face prision, even when the chances are low, is quite a risk.
Even this comment in HN could put me into problems if the guard considers it harmful.
If a funny pic of a politician can put you into prision, the probably some messages you write in a WhatsApp group with friends, discussing world news, could mean serious problems.
> I don't have more recent statistics, but I'm going to assume that the number is the same or higher this year.
Why would you?
> Out of that population which could fill a decent-sized country, how many people have been treated so unfairly as the one in this article? How do those stats compare with other countries, and the inevitable abuses that occur in any vast bureaucracy?
Most people have an opinion about the US. They might have shared it on social media.
For comparison, the government of Turkey might care if you have insulted Erdoğan on social media (I don’t know; they might). But chances are you want to travel to Turkey while not having strong enough opinions to have flamed Erdoğan on social media. People care more about what they can see in Turkey; foreigners objectively spend more time on US political news than they spend thinking about the US national parks.
Ah yes let's ignore tech conferences like H.O.P.E. [0] or even my own [1] suffering drastic setbacks due to international attendance dropping off a cliff.
We should just lecture our audience to keep their head on straight and come travel.
> In 2023, when tourism rates had yet to fully recover from Covid, over 66 million people visited the US from abroad. I don't have more recent statistics, but I'm going to assume that the number is the same or higher this year.
Given the repeated reports of international carriers cutting US routes due to lack of demand this year, I wonder why you would assume that the numbers this year are the same as two years ago?
> It's possible to oppose the current US administration and still retain your rationality.
Waving off new abuses isn't rationality (it's also not opposing the current administration, but the opposite, carrying water for them.)
It should be. Because at the end of the day tourism is the motivation for many of the problems today: soaring rents due to AirBnBs, environmental damage from air travel and cruise ships flooding small cities daily, people blowing money on travel instead of saving and investing, tourism jobs keeping wages suppressed…
I expect this British man [0] to have cancelled this family trip to Miami now, after having found a picture online of his tattoo with his daughter's date and time of birth being published by the ICE as an example of a "Venezuelan gang tattoo".
This is chilling to more than just tourists. I have friends who are Mexican nationals who now have to consider any meme on their phone before their way back to the States after visiting home.
My last border crossing, a few days ago: "What was the purpose of your travel? ... What are you bringing back with you? ... Welcome home." Took one minute.
Legally they should, especially if those memes are anti-American. They are subject to immigration law, which is constitutional.
We are so nice to non-citizens in America that many of them actually do think they are legally a citizen's equal, except for voting rights. (I used to think that myself.) They are not.
I'd go further and say that going to the USA as a tourist unethical at this point. Keeping your money out the USA is the best thing you can do for the USA and the world right now.
Tbh even visiting much more authoritorian countries can be quite a pleasant experience as foreigner. As long as you not plan to work or become permanent resident they usually nicer to foreigners than to locals.
With exception of might be Russia very few of such countries actually ever arrest tourists. Worst that can happen they'll send you out and ban for life.
Being a citizen of authoritorian country is another story...
Our friend from Norway (who is not a terrorist) already cancelled their US vacation plans before this story for exactly the reasons spelled out within it. We'll miss seeing them, but we get it.
I omitted Netherlands because while they did actually have lèse-majesté laws on the books, and prosecuted people under it, they abolished it after Trump's first presidency. OK, I am kidding, it had nothing at all to do with Trump, they just abolished it in 2020 without any connection to what happened in the US.
Belgium abolished similar law in 2023. Switzerland allows you to mock local politicians, but not foreign ones based in Switzerland (go figure). Portugal, Iceland, Denmark and Brazil still seem to have such codes, though I am not aware of any recent prosecutions (maybe they exist, I'm just lazy and don't want to make this into a whole M.Sc. thesis in political science).
Indeed. The only information we seem to have is the report this young man provided to his local newspaper. There are no corroborating witnesses or evidence thus far that I can find that confirm this incident actually occurred.
I’m no fan of the current administration but this is one person’s account so inherently 1 sided. I just flew in from Europe and most people were not searched. US border control don’t have time to systemically search the phones of all travelers. I’m guessing some other red flag triggered the questioning and phone search and denial (eg no return ticket or accommodation booked).
Yeah, expecting a governmental agency to produce evidence that will negatively impact their political standing is a very reasonable request indeed. Or expecting evidence from a person who was stripped of all their devices. How silly these people are for working with what they have. They even lie about how much and what quality of information is it that they possess... oh wait, no they don't, you're just being a jackass. Well ain't that unfortunate.
Because people of all political persuasions tell lies for attention and to support their political agenda. It is sensible to withhold judgment until there is sufficient information to make a reasonable determination on the balance of probabilities. That may mean witholding your righteous indignation for a day or two, but that's a price worth paying.
Indeed, a clear indication that the meme was the reason, or at least part of the reason, to deny admission would have a very serious weight, and hopefully grounds for the reversal of the decision, and a disciplinary action.
You are talking about the US administration here, which is currently making up rules as it pleases based on the whims of a geriatric maniac, and where masked kidnappers are abducting people off the streets without repercussion. None of what you said is likely to happen.
I agree that the top of the administration is plenty rotten, but I still believe that rank-and-file people in governmental agencies did not lose their dignity, at least those who had it.
> it is the traveller's responsibility to have valid documents and be familiar with the current entry regulations
This response from the Norwegian foreign office makes it seem like the man lacked proper documentation, which led to the search. However, it’s unclear to me whether the comment is specific to this case or just a general statement.
Wrong. DHS tells the Airlines your ESTA Status, so they won't let you board if you don't have a valid one. And if you don't have one, the Airlines will check for a Visa
"DHS communicates a traveler’s ESTA status to the carriers. However, DHS recommends that travelers print out the ESTA application response as a record of their ESTA application number to confirm their ESTA status."
They also have DHS Agents on the departure Airports, which already tell the Airlines which Passengers aren't allowed to board. If the Airlines violate against this, they face severe consequences like a ban from US Airspace
at the very end of the article there's a statement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that contains "..and it is the traveller's responsibility to have valid documents and be familiar with the current entry regulations." which makes me believe there's more to the story.
you people have been had... RTFA... a tourist "claims" this happened. The tourist name is Mads Mikkelsen??? The dude has the same name as the fucking actor??? Really??? Seriously people, learn when things smell of bullshit and when it doesn't.
You are aware that names are not UUIDs, and that the same name can be used by several people, right? Especially since Mikkelsen is a rather common Danish surname (with around 35000 people named that) and Mads having been a very popular boy's name in the 1990s?
This guy was certainly flagged before he got on the plane in Norway. The US has data sharing agreements with lots of countries. His online behaviour was already known. The Trump administration changed the filters for what they're looking for in people's profiles. This guy fit.
If you are going to upset the empire with your on and offline behaviour, you better practice solid information hygene.
Your ESTA approval clearly states that it does not grant you a right to enter the US and that the final decision will only be made at the border. So he was likely flagged but still may have had a chance to enter depending on the outcome of the border interrogation.
Yeah, but my point was as a reply to the claim that it was clearly something else that denied him entry.
Which it could still be. ESTA was granted because it was a "maybe". Then they found something at the border that was not in meme form, that the article doesn't mention.
Maybe he had no pre booked return ticket, was claiming to stay with a friend he didn't have the address of, and then the meme was the last (albeit tiny) straw.
My experience with CBP is that if you answer "wrong" (including saying that you only have the hotel name on your phone, which you are not allowed to check at the desk), then you need something "right", like a business card, to dig yourself out.
To play devils advocate: I have a feeling the rules around what's allowed on social media according to these new rules are pretty vague and so whoever vetted this ended up being the judge in this case. I doubt jd vance made some memo about not allowing bald vance meme sharers from entering the country.
Do you doubt that there was a memo sent out that instructed CPD to deny entry to anyone who has anything negative to say about the administration? Because that seems like exactly something this admin would do.
585 comments
[ 5.3 ms ] story [ 421 ms ] threadWhat has changed recently is technology collapsing the world into a single blob of information, and that aspect gets worse every year.
The law works differently at the border, especially for non-citizens. Tourists don't have any legal right to get in. You may argue that the guards should be kinder and I would agree.
The historical examples you mention involve racism and slavery that were terrible but also the global standard at the time.
The Patriot Act is scary, but it doesn't seem much better elsewhere in the Anglosphere or in Europe. Say something impolitic loud enough and you'll get in trouble anywhere.
Here's hoping individual freedoms win in the end.
Depends on who "you" are.
There some some who are allowed to openly make tangible, if thinly veiled death threats to others without repercussions. Others can have their lives ruined over trivial things.
The "you"s who are not granted as much freedom of speech are aware of it and only express themselves among trusted people.
The type of speech being policed is different, but it's absolutely happening.
There was probably some nationalism too. Stalin buried internatonalism quickly. They would inevitably bow to the Russian overlords. No shame about it. We were bowing to the USA in the West and we still are.
Anyway, was communism only a facade by the 70s and the 80s? In that case it was a fully fascist country. All of the East.
I'd like to hear from somebody who lived in those countries at that time.
TSA employees in 2000's USA scan your luggage and poke through it with technology. For any reason or no reason, they can open it up and poke through it by hand, or ask for assistance from nearby policemen with guns.
Is there any moral difference? If so, what is it?
(Also, nitpick: The East Germans were Communists, not fascists.)
We take into account motivation pretty often to evaluate morality not sure why you can't apply it here
TSA's purpose is prevent harm to other passengers (effectiveness is debatable but not the point), the east German border guards were there to keep control on what information the population could access and share
They are not the same thing even if the means look the same
There's no action (and by that I do mean action, not something abstract that involves multiple actions and choices) that won't be moral some times and immoral others. Intent is always to be accounted for. I'd be happy to have counterexamples if you have any in mind
Also pretty weird to see you infuse a sense of moral superiority to this website of all places
i drove to Surrey to a UPS Store, resealed and shipped the package and returned to the border. The US Immigration officer asked why I was only in Canada for 30 minutes, I explained, he laughed and sent me on my way.
Moral of the story is that every country can and will search your stuff and detain you and often turn you back for no meaningful reason.
Is it? Lack of rights at the border isn't "fascism", it's the norm. I don't think any country gives you 4th amendment (or similar) rights at the border, even liberal democracies.
Horribly authoritarian, with wanton disregard for human rights, yes, but not "fascist".
Fascism is a specific ideology invented in Italy in the early 20th century; it does not just mean any authoritarian dictatorship.
Indeed, but those people are wrong. It would be like calling Jerry Falwell an Islamist extremist. Maybe they are bad for vaguely similar reasons but it is still inaccurate.
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.
Really, you're just pissing into the wind.
I agree that the term fascist is wildly over-used, to the point where actual fascist behaviours are getting normalised.
Not sure I would ever consider the GDR to have been "fascist".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germany
If you are doing something illegal, they call the police, and the police arrest you.
Or is it “huh europe is weird they give their TSA agents guns instead of having the transport security and also airport police?”
To add another example to your list -- the TSA also has their own police (e.g. Federal Air Marshal Service), but they don't work the line screening your baggage.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_Unite...
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition. There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
https://plas.princeton.edu/news/2023/do-latin-america’s-top-...
I'm not a historian, but this reminds me a bit of the prelude to the French Revolution: a growing list of grievances against a ruling class by a population that feels abused, disenfranchised, and numerous.
Even if one expects to enjoy a sense of Schadenfreude were such a revolution/slaughter to occur, our staples of daily life (food, medicine, electricity, fuel) are distributed over such a geographically large network, that almost everyone on the country would suffer greatly.
I imagine.
Anyway, even I, with my paltry education in history, can see the historical parallels. And here I am, versus an oligarchic class that had the opportunity for a world-class education, and surely knows at least as much history as I do. I wonder if they really believe that they've found the way to prevent the inevitable consequences this time, or if they just think that they'll have found some way out, possibly just having passed the buck to the next generation, before the consequences for them come to pass.
The other thing to remember about the French Revolution was that nearly all the revolutionaries who came to power during it were dead by the end of it. The folks who are crying "We're in power now, suckas!" are being extremely stupid. Power doesn't last long at times like this.
The other thing that scares me is that the best place to be in all those historical times of crisis was an ocean away from the place where the crisis starts. But that doesn't work today; we have weapons with global reach that can level whole cities in 30 minutes. If the U.S. disintegrates nowhere on earth is safe.
This is a very Hollywood action film way of seeing the world. In the case of an American civil war, it's unlikely that it will be fought using nuclear weapons, and in that case, it's unlikely that they would use any on say, Chile, or Australia.
Europeans are screwed though.
If you live in Chile, the main danger is not that the U.S. drops a nuke on you. It's that Pakistan (freed from fear of international condemnation) drops a nuke in India, which then can no longer export rice to Saudi Arabia, where revolt breaks out, which cuts off the flow of oil, which makes Chile's economy grind to a halt.
India is also a nuclear state, so this is pretty unlikely unless the wheels really come off the deterrence strategy. North Korea attacking South Korea perhaps, but even that seems unlikely as it would greatly anger NK's closest ally of China.
So it’s not the Hollywood action movie view of the world. It’s just the standard 2005 version of Pax Americana make-believe.
Meanwhile Israel has attacked Iran and its US ally said “we want to do that too”.
History rhymes.
Democrats lost their conscience with Clinton.
The last republican president with a clear conscience was probably Bush Sr. He was also crucified for it (hence the single term). He foolishly let reason about running a government get in the way of party bluster and that ended his career.
Carter was the last democrat president with a conscience and he also was lambasted for it.
Unfortunately in the US, principles and conscience haven't resulted in party success in the last 50 years.
And the difference is really striking.
Once Republicans got power, they immediately forgot basically ALL their ideals: small government, States rights, adherence to law, budget discipline, etc.
Just because who he voted for got the power, does not mean Yarvin got the power.
"Me Yarvin, Me powerful now". Is not true. What power does he think he has.???
The real question is, what has to happen before these people 'learn', or 'understand' that they were duped. What would it take for them to really grasp how they were played? Like all those Germans that shrug, 'I didn't know'.
A better summary might be:
Yarvin tells Scott that today’s populist right is too weak to fear, while the real authoritarian danger comes from the prestige-driven institutions that already steer American life. His shift since 2008 isn’t a sell-out but a recognition that the fuel of mass democracy has run low and that the managerial regime’s ongoing failures are the greater evil.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44369233
Or celebration
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44369218
The whole “political correctness is so bad that we need to elect the current regime” crew only ever really wanted to feel aligned with power and are more or less indifferent to what that power does so long as they are periodically made to feel reassured that they are on the right side of it.
The polite description of bootlicker
Him and the people that backed him are the machine behind of all of this.
I condemn cancel-culture full stop whether its the right-wing mcarthyism of the fifties or the leftist bullies of the last decade.
Do you?
https://usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2025/06/25/tourist-de...
Whoever you believe, it turns out that knee jerk reactions are rarely useful in stories like these.
And as far as the original story, individual border agents should absolutely not be doing this to people because they have a meme on their phone, doubly so one where Vance shared a version of it himself. There is straight up no justification for this.
Dark days for the values the US professes to represent.
> We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words
and further that you're intending to use it as a burn on Trump and his government?
Regardless of what you think about them and Neo-Nazis/white supremacists, I think it's unfair because the policies of the current administration with regard to war, debt, environmentalism etc. evince a total disregard for the futures of children of any colour.
That is due to incompetence, not desire.
No. Should have precisely zero baring on anything at all.
Reminder: Support of free speech requires support of the right to say things that you loathe by people you hate or you don’t support free speech.
No it doesn't. You're putting arbitrary limits to suit your views. You can support free speech for American citizens and also support using a foreigner's speech to determine whether or not we allow them into the country. That's just smart border policy. We should be vetting who we allow into our country, and using their speech is one way to vet them.
Obviously not allowing someone in over a bald JD Vance meme is stupid. But the idea that we have to allow all foreigners the same level of free speech without it affecting their chances of getting into the country is also stupid.
Who is this "we" and what rules govern these "we"? What are the consequences for this "we" just up and violating the rules or throwing those rules out altogether to grift, stay in power and persecute those they hate?
Maybe someday the civilized world will realize democracy often ends in the case of two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
The bar for when speech should be criminalized/penalized by the government should be very high.
For private entities I'm far more tolerate of censorship especially since it cuts both ways. Allowing or banning speech can directly impact a company's bottom line and should be regulated by customers choosing to interact with or avoid platforms.
I know you didn't mean it this way, but both sides believe this to be true depending on how you define "the right"
The thread in question is already 6 days old but you (both) broke the site rules so badly that this is not one to let pass.
We end up having to ban accounts that break the site guidelines like that, so please don't do it again.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
See it?
One of the underdiscussed aspects of an authoritarian regime is that it creates countless little tyrants that all feel empowered to exert whatever power they have in any way they see fit.
Some years later "Pull the guy with tattoos". Full search.
Year or two after that, New York, pulled from the queue, directed to stand in a clear box. "Do not move your feet from those markings". My young daughter had to stand and watch.
Another trip. My passport photo did not fit their criteria. "Why did you shave your head?" .. "Because it was hot" .. repeat that whole interaction several times.
I am so so happy that I never have to visit the USA again and it's solely because of the 'people' assigned as 'guards'.
Most border agents are brutal, regardless of the current administration. But things do seem to get worse when the Republicans/MAGA are in. I wouldn't even want to think about how they'll act if a big terrorist attack comes.
Drawing attention to yourself results in attention. Who knew.
People who put tattoos on their face are looking for attention. Attention is exactly what he got.
Obviously the guy has never traveled to Asia. He'd be singled out in every port and every station. Sounds like he lives a tidy life in No Europe. Where bald white guys with face tattoos and body armor are normal and only brown people are singled out in security lines...
This is a perfect example of Bourdieu's idea of symbolic violence and the violence of the arbitrary.
The uncomfortable truth is, for many the thrill isn't in enforcing fair rules, or even unfair ones. The thrill is in the power to enforce arbitrary rules. The point isn't who gets punished, it's that someone can be, at a moment's notice, for no coherent reason. And the joy is in unpredictability, in knowing they can shift the rules under your feet and there's no one appeal to.
This is the logic sitting beneath every hand-wringing editorial and rage-bait thread about "cancel culture run amok." The goal is sovereignty, not consistency. It's about who gets to draw the lines and when they can redraw them. Arbitrary enforcement isn't a bug. It’s the feature.
The clever "gotcha" crowd falls flat when they imagine that, by exposing contradictions, they'll force a confession, a moment of logic, an admission, and surrender. But that moment never comes. When the point is arbitrariness, contradiction isn't a failure. It's the currency of power. Pointing it out only proves you're not the one with power.
What will the "PC culture" critics say? Probably what they’ve always said. Remember, it's not about the arguments. It's about who gets to arbitrate, who gets to punish, and who gets to laugh last.
It always has been.
This really is just what we have been hearing from the cultural right for a long time, masked as a kind both-sides/human-nature take. It sounds good, in that it gives something like general principle to subsume all the instances. But it just doesn't really make sense in the actually existing world. How could any given side even know they are the new hegemon, the new line-drawers, at any given moment. At what point are they rewarded with regard to the influence they wield? What does it even look like? Do you have examples? Sovereignty implies a concentration of something like power, but your very point here seems to decentralize sovereignty to the point of it being unrecognizable as such. Its like taking something very individual and trying to stretch it across everything in awkward way.
Just simply: how does this actually work? When does whatever side thats on top actually get to feel good, actually get to be the sovereign?
In my experience, the scope is the establishment of a status hierarchy.
We love to put ourselves in a privileged position. In most internet discussion, the status hierarchy extends throughout the duration of the encounter. In most Thanksgivings, the crazy uncle goes away at the end of the night, in marriages, it extends for the duration of the relationship. It's fundamentally tied to the social engagement.
Does it not feel at least a little juvenile to think like this, if you look at it critically, maybe from a little more the outside than you seem to be? These kind of pat armchair psychologies that answer in one breath the phenomena of culture, of human interaction feel just extremely schoolyard to me... but I guess ymmv.
At the very least: its unfalsifiable; one could easily go the other way and say "people love to belong to a group, and being able to police another group's language/jokes/etc is the best mechanism for reinforcing their belonging".
To picture you and your smug interlocutor as ever placed in some asymmetric structure where they are the king and you are the pauper belies the staying power of these controversies, the clear struggle they manifest. You make it sound so much like there never even is a battle, just spontaneous winners and losers.
I don't want to come off as harsh, but what you are arguing for is the logic of a loser, in the technical sense. Its asserting a projection you/others have of perceived intellectual enemies as a kind social theory for everything. It dooms you to fatalism you just dont need to have! Humans, for better or worse have a capacity for much more complicated motives. You do not need to "Mean Girls" the entire world!
I'm curious though, you seem to have not experienced this sort of internet domineering?
Yes and: Free speech maximalists seek freedom from consequences.
Reading your missive, I now have to consider how impunity is related to sovereignty.
I have a sibling that's deep into this, he would say "haha owned"
As someone who would be closer to that side than the opposite: this is terrible and unacceptable.
(It is not that hard to have actual principles)
Also remember that JD Vance himself has plenty of air time laughing at these memes, and they aren't considered threatening like calling out Biden's cognitive decline with memes making fun of it.
The overall response to memes of this nature are very different on either side. One side wants to censor the entire internet and penalize people for daring to share something politically incorrect, while the other caught an outsider who may harbor threatening sentiments about our nation, with the intent to harm - although I sincerely don't think that's the case here.
Part of the irony here is that you'll more likely find a right-winger with more JD Vance memes on their phone than this guy.
The mass-censorship has a much deeper weight to it than inconveniencing 1 tourist, and I think it's a little surprising this needs to be explained.
In this case, we have a report that someone was denied entry over an image of JD Vance.
From the same report, we have the facts that JD Vance approved of the meme the image was taken from, using it himself; and that the image provoked border control agents into interrogating the person about his ties to "right-wing extremism". Not usually something you'd expect from someone about whom the only thing you know is that he appears to be criticizing right-wing politicians.
It seems safe to conclude that politics weren't a concern. If you wanted to diagnose what happened, this looks more like the agents were looking to turn people away and seized on whatever they thought they could make work.
You do you but that's gonna be a no for me.
I don't want to be in some Central American concentration camp when they decide that its time to turn on the ovens.
There was the case a few months ago of a Canadian lady being detained and denied entry "for no reason", and then it turned out she wanted to work in the US while on a tourist visa, and also was attempting to evade border patrol by flying to Mexico and entering via the southern border instead of the northern border or at an airport, where she had previously been denied admittance.
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, being extremely combative with the initially polite officer, refusing to provide identification, refusing to exit the vehicle 10 times when the officer was attempting to lawfully arrest him, and then being tasered.
So the Norwegian's account can't be trusted but the CPD's can? Why?
Also most drugs are not federal crimes and it sounds like he wasn't arrested for it, so there's no record and therefore no reason to prevent lawful entry.
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14842359/Norwegian-...
> It comes after an Australian writer claimed he was turned away from the US border after being grilled on his views on the Gaza conflict and articles he wrote about pro-Palestinian protests.
> Alistair Kitchen, 33, boarded a flight from Melbourne to New York to visit friends on June 12 when he was pulled to one side by a Customs and Border Protection officer during a layover in Los Angeles.
> He was detained for 12 hours at Los Angeles International Airport before being put on a flight back to Melbourne.
> Mr Kitchen claimed a customs officer told him he was being detained because of his views on the pro-Palestinian rallies that took place on campus at the New York university last year.
> 'I was interrogated about my beliefs on the crisis in Gaza. I told him what I believe: that the war is a tragedy in which all parties have blood on their hands, but which can and must come to an immediate end,' he wrote in The Sydney Morning Herald.
Was this drugs too? Or maybe he did something else DHS can blame instead of owning their behavior?
So again, how many times does this government have to police thought before you admit that is what they are doing, and how does that not directly conflict with your free speech ideology?
The messages were described by the source in your article “reflect[ing] hatred toward Trump and can be described as terrorism”, and “hateful and conspiratorial messages”. Maybe they were? Who knows?
https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/20...
Where does it say that? Your source only says profiles need to be public
Moreover your description is slightly misleading because it only applies to "all applicants for F, M, and J nonimmigrant visas", which notably excludes tourism visas (B-2). The visas listed all seem to be academic related, presumably because the administration wants to crack down on woke ivy league students or whatever.
> "THE US EMBASSY in Dublin is tightening its visa requirements, saying that future applicants looking to visit the country will be required to divulge “all social media usernames or handles of every platform they have used from the last five years” on their visa application form."
https://www.thejournal.ie/us-visa-changes-6740830-Jun2025/
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44354298 (209 comments)
I got in. I was sent to some form of secondary screening, but they apparently couldn't find anybody who could speak English, so they just let me in.
Edit: I'm from a rich western country, in case it matters for anybody getting an understanding of who gets treated what way.
I of course wouldn't know if they tried to find my profiles.
I guess it's a routine part of China's paranoia. They definitely do do weird things to check if tourists are causing trouble in some way i guess. I imagine that sort of interaction alone would scare off trouble makers and it's probably effective honestly.
I’m guessing you actually did something suspicious or illegal without realizing it.
A common and simple example of this is taking pictures where it’s technically forbidden — airports, military buildings (these aren’t always obvious to visitors), religious sites, etc.
Another example would be interacting with a person of interest. This could be a Chinese person that they are watching, or a foreigner that they are keeping tabs on (e.g., embassy staff that they suspect of being an agent).
As a tourist, you probably wouldn’t notice these things or even be aware that they are a red flag.
And while the delay might have been the airline's fault and possibly you could have a civil claim against them for damages incurred it is still your responsibility to have a valid Visa and not overstay it and also your responsibility to pay any fines for it (which you may or may not be able to get reimbursed).
The really sad story is that the flight was canceled a second time after that drama, and we were really feeling a lot of emotions over that debacle. Suffice it to say we’ve sworn off delta for awhile.
China gives you a ten year unlimited entry visa, so it’s pretty hard to screw that up.
Case in point this is only the 2nd story ever to come out about someone being detained / refused entry for content that was on their phone since Trump is president.
In contrast, my worst border experiences have been in the U.S. and Canada (and I've traveled to over 30 countries).
In the US, I was nearly denied entry at SFO while on a valid TN visa simply because I didn't have a business card with me. The officer also referred to my wife as a "Chinese bitch" - within earshot (this happened during the Obama years). I had to let them handle my phone a bit to verify work emails, etc. But they didn't really search through it beyond that.
In Canada, I was sent to secondary inspection, had my bags searched, and was asked to show the photos on my phone. I was questioned for over an hour and they never told me the reason for it. It felt like they suspected me of smuggling drugs because the guy kept asking me what I had for breakfast... I'm Canadian btw and don't do drugs.
FWIW in the US you usually also don't get asked more than that (not including questions on you Visa / visa exempt application) and searches are not standard procedure that everyone goes through.
But we don't talk about that for whatever reason.
(if ever.)
Sure, if you get sent to secondary screening they may pick up your bag for you, but no.
Luggage pickup is after CBP. As far as I remember this is the case everywhere.
The best way to seem like you're not hiding something is to have something else to show.
Also better to leave the laptop at home, if you don't want to wipe it.
I think the title is deficient and should be based on this higher-weighted fact, over the weaker phrasing "refused entry".
"Tourist jailed without trial for possessing political cartoon"
I don’t doubt that it’s possible he was denied because of the Vance image and that in itself says something terrible about the current state of affairs.
But I think it’s more likely that he was stopped based on some other red flag like not having a return ticket and denied because of that.
Edit: It was drug use according to CPB: https://x.com/CBP/status/1937651325354795444
Not the hundreds of “highly intelligent and immune to manipulation” HackerNews readers apparently.
How are you even certain the story happened?
Why would you be any degree of certain that it happened the way that this angry Norwegian is saying it happened?
How would you have any idea you’re being manipulated or not? Would you care if it entirely aligned with your presumptions and preferences?
https://x.com/CBP/status/1937651325354795444
He does say he was detained PRIOR to the picture being found. Being detained if far more relevant than being asked about a photo.
It's also important to note that Border Control will not tell you WHY you're being denied entry, so the person ascribing it to the meme is speculating based on being asked about it.
Jail almost by definition means pretrial detention, so "jailed without trial" is a tautology.
> A jail holds people for shorter periods of time (for example, less than a year) or for pre-trial detention and is usually operated by a local government, typically the county sheriff.
> A prison or penitentiary holds people for longer periods of time, such as many years, and is operated by a state or federal government. After a conviction, a sentenced person is sent to prison.
Here's an example of it used that way in Virginia's laws, at https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter1/secti...
> The authorized punishments for conviction of a misdemeanor are:
> (a) For Class 1 misdemeanors, confinement in jail for not more than twelve months and a fine of not more than $2,500, either or both.
Nitpicking about the precise legal terminology is a bit pointless in this context.
If some protester got arrested for protesting, the reasonable thing to do is to call it just that, not "protester jailed without trial for protesting".
That he was refused entry because of the picture is his speculation and likely not the full truth because they only found the picture after already pulling him aside.
There is certainly questionable behavior by the CPB here if the description is correct but lets not make conclusions that aren't backed by facts.
Edit: CPB refutes that he was denied entry because of the meme: https://x.com/CBP/status/1937651325354795444
The context: He smoked weed in California, where it's legal, years ago.
This guy isn't a drug trafficker. He's not doing meth or heroin, never did. He smoked weed, in a legal state (as millions of Americans do on a daily basis).
Then he made the critical mistake of handing over his phone to be searched, rather than flying home (!), upon which advanced creepy software (probably developed and funded by some of this very crowd) flagged this 'federal crime' of smoking weed while in Cali.
So yes, the meme is a red herring, but it's distracting from a thing that's still incredibly fucked up.
It's still a demented justification to turn someone away from the country. "You can come here, buy weed in a majority of states, and face no fear of repercussions... Until you try and come back in". That's nutty. It's batshit.
And, the real reason he was brought in - as brought up by the Immi officers - was that he was doing journalism at one of the anti-genocide protests.
Keep in mind I'm very much not pro Isreal, but it's not practical or moral to have foreign partisans participating in our politics that way.
That would be called 'freedom of assembly', which is a universal human right (see Article 20 of the UNDHR). Highly moral, most practical, and widely recognized as such.
A state (not federal) senator and his wife were attempted murdered, but both survived and are expected to recover.
Your comment frames it as if 2 members of federal congress were assassinated which would have been a much bigger deal. State politicians being killed is still shocking and tragic, but try to be precise in your language as to not mislead.
This is not a good sign for democracy in the US. I think a healthy response would be protests, investigations, state and federal "comissions" looking into domestic political terrorism, etc. A whole lot of consequences. Instead there is nothing.
In contrast, in Brazil (not even a best example of a healthiest democracy) the assassination of a city councilwoman (city! not even state!) has been a dominant story in politics for many years and has never completely fallen out of public attention. It's been close to a decade!
I'm not one to quickly say "fascism" or to spell out doom but even to me this is a crystal clear sign of a system starting to fail...
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marielle_Franco
The real problem is that the US system allows individuals with minimal training and virtually no oversight to wield unchecked power over travelers' lives.
Trump himself probably wouldn't care (which is why he thinks these rules are fine - he knows what should be a jailable offense) but of course the bureaucracy needs to make rules that any of the thousands of border guards can follow. The outcome is a bullwhip effect and you get this (or worse).
Out of that population which could fill a decent-sized country, how many people have been treated so unfairly as the one in this article? How do those stats compare with other countries, and the inevitable abuses that occur in any vast bureaucracy?
It's possible to oppose the current US administration and still retain your rationality.
The numbers are not a principle.
Pedantic, but if it is at entry rather than chasing people down afterwards, its probably CBP, not ICE. (CBP also does some chasing down afterward, too.)
And we don't really whether the JD Vance meme wasn't just the frosting on the cake. All we have is the tourist's word.
Zero, but that's not the same question. If something I think is unacceptable happens at a low rate, the fact that I think it's bad doesn't mean it's necessarily rational to change one's travel plans because of it, if the rate is low enough.
If I go to Iceland, there is some nonzero chance I'll be killed in a surprise volcanic eruption, but I wouldn't let that deter me from visiting Iceland.
The relatively high violent crime rate in US cities which was already present before the current administration is already a much more real reason not to visit the US than authoritarian border guards, although I'd argue even that would be a bit exaggerated.
Why would you compare an unpredictable natural risk with one stemming from human behavior and government policy? This is like saying speeding limits are a bad idea because some people are killed by lightning.
By the way, I never said anything like "power tripping pro-MAGA border guards are okay because there are volcanoes in Iceland", so your lightning vs. speed limits analogy isn't relevant.
> Going to the USA as a tourist might be the most stupid action that one can make at this time. Unless you have a dying mother or father, there is absolutely no reason to visit this country. It reminds me of the tourists that used to go to North Korea for fun some years ago, it never was a good idea.
did not claim that one has a moral obligation to avoid the US, but rather tried to claim that it was stupid to do so from a purely rational perspective.
It’s the latter point I disagree with. People who avoid the US due to the possibility of personal harm by border guards are being irrational (unless perhaps they’re prominent pro-Palestinian activists).
I never said there’s no reason not visit the US. Avoiding it as a political protest against the current administration is a perfectly decent reason! But that’s not what was originally claimed.
As a tourist doing tourist things in the US, your risk of being involved in a violent crime is notably lower than an average US citizen, and your risk of being involved with a border guard is notably higher.
World Travel & Tourism Council says international visitor spending is going to drop by $12.5bn this year (down 22.5%).
Ask people who have tried going to Canada from the US how welcoming border guards can be at their ports of entry. Say the wrong thing or try to cross with the wrong thing (in my friend's case, it was a set of tools used to repair electronics) and they will try to jam you up and deny entry.
Canadian Border Guards then lectured me about responsible gun ownership, tore about my bags going "Since you don't keep track of your guns, let's find out if they are in your bags", went through my iPad movie content and finally was like "Ok, you are clear".
I've been back multiple times and since then, Scan Passport Check Computer STAMP PASSPORT Welcome to Canada.
However, when returning to the United States, even as a citizen (born, not naturalized), I have frequently faced questioning about my social graph, who specifically I have contacted, and things of that nature. I thought it was one dickhead guard in Vermont, but it keeps happening.
I managed to save a few by arguing how ineffective as weapons they would be and then watch as two security staff try their best to pinch each other with wire strippers.
No qualms with your actual point, but immigration/customs is not the same thing as airport security, sorry but it's my pet peeve when people conflate them.
I planned last year to stop off in Hawaii and Seattle on the way from NZ to the UK this May, but in March this year I altered that and just did Vancouver instead as the stop-off.
I know several friends and colleages who have also done similar (even two didn't go to weddings of friends in the US).
Yeah, good luck downplaying the 12+ billion the US tourism industry is about to lose this year.
Stop measuring dicks with America. It has a much larger population and economy, so you cannot win.
Searching for projections seems to indicate that our tourism industry will definitely be growing:
Canadian tourism is expected to increase in 2025. Key points include:
Canadian travel demand surged by 61% year-over-year, reflecting growing interest in adventure and sustainable tourism. 67% of Canadians plan to travel more in 2025, with many prioritizing lesser-visited destinations. Morocco and Egypt are increasingly popular among Canadian travelers seeking cultural immersion. Solo travel is on the rise, with 1 in 4 Canadians planning their first solo adventure. A devalued Canadian dollar could provide a significant boost to the sector by attracting more foreign visitors and their spending. Canada's revenue in the Travel & Tourism market is predicted to reach US$17.42bn in 2025, with a steady annual growth rate of 2.25%. Evolving domestic spending patterns are also contributing to measured growth in Canada's tourism industry.
Enjoy your fascist country - it is truly the "most free", right? Right?
Only something that's small, or in a recession, will grow 61% YoY.
And last time I visited Canada, this month, I was asked more questions on the Canadian side of the border than on the American one. Which is perfectly normal, given the fact that I had an American passport. Both interviews took 2-3 minutes, by the way. A lot of the sensational "news" are clickbait for the TikTok empty brain generation, who just swallows them hook, line and sinker.
Most people will never experience problems at the border, especially the kind who prepare and get informed ahead of time (I actually knew what items in what quantity I could bring back from Canada, and I did bring back beer for a friend, way above the 1L/person limit - the officer didn't even blink when I declared it). I have never had problems with border police or customs, even when I visited a couple of communist countries, maybe because I never lie to them, not even by omission.
As I said, stop measuring dicks with the US. It's a great country, just in a different way from Canada.
Nope, tourism is tanking. There are numerous stories about tourists being detained for little to no reason and eventually deported.
Travel warnings from various international orgs like Amnesty International and other governments have been mounting since 2019. It also doesn't help when the president attacks the country that makes up a large portion of tourist like Canada.
We haven't been there since this current administration took over, and have no plans on it until something changes.
Trumps comments regarding Canada, and the whole "51st state" rhetoric triggered the decision, but these stories absolutely play a part in it. I'm not about to put myself, or my family, in a position where someone might be detained for anywhere from days to weeks for no reason.
There's a big, beautiful world out there, and plenty of countries who are happy to have us and take our tourist dollars, all without me having to worry about getting detained for silly pictures on my phone. It's a pretty easy decision if you ask me.
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.
Even this comment in HN could put me into problems if the guard considers it harmful.
If a funny pic of a politician can put you into prision, the probably some messages you write in a WhatsApp group with friends, discussing world news, could mean serious problems.
Why would you?
> Out of that population which could fill a decent-sized country, how many people have been treated so unfairly as the one in this article? How do those stats compare with other countries, and the inevitable abuses that occur in any vast bureaucracy?
Most people have an opinion about the US. They might have shared it on social media.
For comparison, the government of Turkey might care if you have insulted Erdoğan on social media (I don’t know; they might). But chances are you want to travel to Turkey while not having strong enough opinions to have flamed Erdoğan on social media. People care more about what they can see in Turkey; foreigners objectively spend more time on US political news than they spend thinking about the US national parks.
I'm quite sure that's their main job, finding out who are the adversaries of the regime.
We should just lecture our audience to keep their head on straight and come travel.
[0] https://archive.is/QWmxO
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44084767
Given the repeated reports of international carriers cutting US routes due to lack of demand this year, I wonder why you would assume that the numbers this year are the same as two years ago?
> It's possible to oppose the current US administration and still retain your rationality.
Waving off new abuses isn't rationality (it's also not opposing the current administration, but the opposite, carrying water for them.)
I can think of several things that are more stupid, and for better or worse, border guards are dicks in a lot of countries.
Not even in my Top 100.
0. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly22xm8kx1o
My last border crossing, a few days ago: "What was the purpose of your travel? ... What are you bringing back with you? ... Welcome home." Took one minute.
We are so nice to non-citizens in America that many of them actually do think they are legally a citizen's equal, except for voting rights. (I used to think that myself.) They are not.
With exception of might be Russia very few of such countries actually ever arrest tourists. Worst that can happen they'll send you out and ban for life.
Being a citizen of authoritorian country is another story...
Like it or not, these countries are who you are being compared to.
France: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230329-french-woman-...
Spain: https://www.catalannews.com/society-science/item/belgian-cou...
Poland: https://www.intellinews.com/polish-writer-faces-prison-for-c...
United Kingdom: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/09/13/queen-elizab... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/16/activist-shock...
Italy: https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/18/italia...
Note in most of these cases people prosecuted faced graver consequences than not being let into the country, and were full citizens, not foreigners.
Belgium abolished similar law in 2023. Switzerland allows you to mock local politicians, but not foreign ones based in Switzerland (go figure). Portugal, Iceland, Denmark and Brazil still seem to have such codes, though I am not aware of any recent prosecutions (maybe they exist, I'm just lazy and don't want to make this into a whole M.Sc. thesis in political science).
This response from the Norwegian foreign office makes it seem like the man lacked proper documentation, which led to the search. However, it’s unclear to me whether the comment is specific to this case or just a general statement.
"DHS communicates a traveler’s ESTA status to the carriers. However, DHS recommends that travelers print out the ESTA application response as a record of their ESTA application number to confirm their ESTA status."
https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/esta/frequ...
They also have DHS Agents on the departure Airports, which already tell the Airlines which Passengers aren't allowed to board. If the Airlines violate against this, they face severe consequences like a ban from US Airspace
https://netzpolitik.org/2014/bundesregierung-beauskunftet-re...
It's not actually that unlikely for other people to possess the name.
If you are going to upset the empire with your on and offline behaviour, you better practice solid information hygene.
Which it could still be. ESTA was granted because it was a "maybe". Then they found something at the border that was not in meme form, that the article doesn't mention.
Maybe he had no pre booked return ticket, was claiming to stay with a friend he didn't have the address of, and then the meme was the last (albeit tiny) straw.
My experience with CBP is that if you answer "wrong" (including saying that you only have the hotel name on your phone, which you are not allowed to check at the desk), then you need something "right", like a business card, to dig yourself out.
Here's a footballer from Tromsø with that name: https://www.til.no/nyheter/mads-med-forste-proffkontrakt . He is 17 years old, so not the 21 year old mentioned here.
Here is another Mads Mikkelsen in Tromsø. https://fjellet.dk/
(Is Tromsø where they keep all the spare Mads Mikkelsens??)