This is ridiculous. Why are they even searching their phone? Many Americans travel to Europe without having their phones searched. We do not want to become that kind of scary country to travel to, especially not the kind of shithole country where you have to be afraid not to offend dear leader.
> We do not want to become that kind of scary country to travel to
It is too late for this. The common policy for researchers going to the US for conferences is to use a burner laptop with nothing but a PowerPoint file. That is the official requirements for public research institutions (which this person should have followed). Just like we do for China and we used to do for Russia. It does not make headlines every time, but a lot of us know a couple of people whose laptops were taken away for searching it. Personally I have also been using a burner phone for a few years (I should say that I had been, because all my scheduled trips to the US this year were cancelled).
> especially not the kind of shithole country where you have to be afraid not to offend dear leader
Before, providing social media handles was a nuisance (and I was never questioned about them). Now it’s scary.
Same for the questions about terrorism. It used to be funny and over the top, but if liking a post about Luigi Mangione is terrorism then it puts the whole thing in a quite different light.
Just a reminder that UK Border Force can confiscate all of your electronic devices for 7 days and you have to give them all your passwords to these devices and associated accounts - refusing to do so is punishable by up to 2 years in prison. And no, they don't need any warrant, just a probable cause. If you want to see more how that looks like this is a video by a guy who experienced it first hand:
To my knowledge in the U.S. foreigners can only be denied entry for refusing to give up their passwords. I suppose an act of Congress could make it more like the situation in the UK.
The search phones in Australia, they also absolutely do it in Europe. As in the U.S., not everyone is getting their devices searched. Travelers to Europe even get denied entry as well — but their home country’s foreign minister doesn’t typically get involved.
Intentionally or not you are definitely implying that specifics of the statements make this action correct. Saying you're not doing something is not quite the same thing as actually not doing it.
What could anyone say about the US president that would justify this? An actual threat on his life? The secret service doesn't appear to be involved. There are no allegations its anything of the sort. Let's not disregard our own faculties for reasoning just based upon the principle that it is conceivable that something could be true.
We don't have an absence of details. We have a lot of details about the current administration of the united states, what their goals are, who they perceive their enemies to be, and what tools they intend to use against them.
We're not getting more information. Border police refuse to talk to the press or provide any information. Trump's border chief, who was Greg Abbott's Texas border czar, is known as secretive and has ignored public records requests from the press.
Basically, he didn't say anything. At the entry point, he was asked to show his phone (unlocked) and computer. On one of them, in some messages he exchanged with a colleague, he was criticizing the politics of Trump in research and science. Then, he was threatened to be charged with terrorism, because his exchange with his colleague was 'hainous against Trump' and 'conspiracy ridden'. Charges were dropped after he was denied entry and his computed and phone confiscated.
edit: I see this has been now downvoted below zero, but the information posted here isn't in any of the official communications about it, so I think it's fair to ask where it came from, no?
That's all the article says, so it doesn't match everything OP said. So either OP made it up, or there is another source in case it's exactly what I'm asking for.
"According to a diplomatic source to AFP, the incident occurred on March 9. The space researcher was reportedly subjected to a random check upon arrival, during which his work computer and personal phone were searched. The same source also reported that messages discussing the Trump administration's treatment of scientists were found. He was reportedly accused of messages "that reflect hatred toward Trump and can be described as terrorism ." His professional and personal equipment was reportedly confiscated, and the researcher was sent back to Europe the next day."
The article is in French, but easily auto-translated (and it's the best non-biased source I found).
> "I learned with concern that a French researcher" on assignment for the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) "who was traveling to a conference near Houston was denied entry to the United States before being expelled ," said the Minister of Higher Education and Research, Philippe Baptiste, in a statement sent to Agence France-Presse (AFP). "This measure was apparently taken by the American authorities because the researcher's phone contained exchanges with colleagues and friends in which he expressed a personal opinion on the Trump administration's research policy ," he added.
At some point we're going to have to debate where to run "western" scientific conferences. I can see Europe/Canada and US/Russia blocs emerging, I'm curious with whom other countries will align.
even before this, no one in my research group and from what I can tell broader related departments has any wish to go to the USA. We're all looking for alternatives. This includes a broad range of people from statistics/ML, to chemistry, to computer science folks.
Yeah I even see a lot of people within the U.S. refusing to travel to red states like Texas due to transgender rights or other non-progressive state laws.
It isn't enough for me to draw a conclusion, but it's enough for me to question this story which so far has only one side represented. If this comes down to the academic in question making social media posts that tripped FBI/Secret Service's "talking about killing the POTUS" or something similar, then yeah that's going to potentially raise flags at the border.
The rules don't change along with the president after all, just like people doing the same thing with Biden or Obama would have raised flags, this would too.
To be sure we'll have to wait and see the messages that are the focus of concern. What bothers me is that so many here are simply running with the headline and turning off their critical thinking because they (understandably) hate Trump's guts.
Yes, I think the actual contents of those messages would make all the difference in assessing the US response.
Note, too that last month two researchers (yes, actual researchers) threw bombs at a Russian consulate in France, so the argument that messages are just banter among friends and that academics would never actually do anything 'stupid' has been severely weakened.
The problem is surely that by considering opinions against the U.S. administration, that it produces a large number of non-compliant visitors. I think it's counter-productive as it just means that most visitors would then have a good reason to hide accounts and conversations. I suppose it "works" in reducing the number of visitors, but is that really of any benefit to the U.S.?
I think it would provide better intelligence if the more casual criticisms of policy were ignored and more attention paid to violent/threatening content. This would allow authorities to focus attention on other people involved in the communication which would probably be of more benefit than trying to target all visitors that disagree with policies.
The rules absolutely change along with the President. The President has total discretion about which non-citizens are allowed entry. Just a few days after Trump took office the first time around, he unilaterally banned people from a bunch of countries from entering. If Trump told CBP to deny entry to anyone found making critical statements of him, that's probably legal and even if it wasn't the illegality probably couldn't be enforced. More likely, this is preemptive compliance, where either the agent feels emboldened to make this determination on his own, or thinks it's what the boss wants. Individual agents have free reign to deny non-citizens entry.
My question came after reading that as well: I have to wonder whether this was a sort of Galois-style statement open to an interpretation of incitement of violence, or whether it simply a statement of Trump's actions being horrible for research. Neither case (of refusing entry) would be good, but the former would be more understandable than the latter.
What do you mean «Neither case would be good»? Not clear.
Example: Gary Marcus wrote six weeks ago, «single-minded obsession with cutting costs is going to cripple science and American universities, with horrific lasting consequences» - that falls into your «...actions being horrible for research», but how does it fit with your statement of a "good case".
Speaking of statements open to misinterpretation... sorry, as the other commenter imagined, I meant that refusing entry for either type of statement would not be good, but one would be worse than the other.
Refusing a foreigner entry for inciting violence (even against people who are not Americans and not in the U.S.) would be perfectly fine with me, though I don't approve of demanding foreigners make all their communications available to CBP (which is basically how we got here).
I do wish we’d have better sources since there could be a range of jokes about the two shooters during the campaign which could get close to a plausible threat, but the fact that they just shipped him home makes that seem less likely. If you thought he was Carlos the Jackal you’d probably at least hold him long enough to investigate his travel plans and contacts more.
> The arrest continues a reported trend of temporary visa holders and visitors being detained by U.S. border officials on their way into the country amid heightened immigration enforcement under the Trump administration and concerns that free speech is no longer a defense when it comes to legal immigration status. // [...] U.S. authorities saw these messages as "hate and conspiracy messages," which prompted an FBI investigation that was later dropped. However, the researcher was sent back to France. // CBP's move to deny entry to a foreign national seemingly solely based on their opinion of the president, rather than necessarily expressing ill will or intentions to harm him, comes amid increased scrutiny of those entering the country. // Legal permanent residents, along with those on work-based visas, have been questioned, detained and even removed from the country in recent weeks, including two German tourists and a Canadian woman trying to renew her visa at the southwest border. // Immigration attorneys have begun advising clients to ensure their social media profiles are free of criticism of the administration and images that could be seen as inappropriate or in support of ideas that do not fit with current U.S. foreign policy.
In the same vein: it's outright bizarre that the HN community in general has a lot of difficulty handling sarcasm and irony, proceeding to knee-jerkingly downvote.
I'm confused: after all, on which bank of the Seine are the snowflakes?
If that's true then there's absolutely no chance of me visiting the US ... possibly again!
A shame, as wanted to drive the Californian coastal roads in a year or two ... guess I'll stick to the Alps.
But let's be honest. Even I was let in, I wouldn't choose to now and ... I guess perhaps forever. Many many good people in the USA but your democracy has spoken. You want Biff in charge and no one wants to be a part of that.
I jokingly mentioned something like that to my wife when Trump was elected. Now, given the current circumstances, I may not get another chance to visit the US. Still, I’m grateful for the time I spent in California, the people I met, and all the beautiful roads I had the chance to explore.
Forever? It's four years and the flip will flop back to the other side. Funny how the rest of the world immediately hates America when we decide we are tired of paying the largest share for the security of Europe for 80 years, or we are tired of our immigration laws being ignored, or we are tired of having our middle class jobs shipped overseas. People only like us for our money, weapons, and jobs. They want the benefits of American culture and capitalism without any of the responsibility.
Its easy to give your citizens free healthcare and college when taxpayers over in America forgo all of that to subsidize your country's security.
> when taxpayers over in America forgo all of that...
Are you really claiming that if the US stopped subsidizing security overseas, American voters and politicians would suddenly begin to support "free healthcare and college" in the US? Your claim is that it's a _budget issue_?
Every time you see something like this in the headlines, I’d like you to have this thought in the back of your mind: “We have a king. Disrespecting the king must be punished.”
Use that as a reminder that you no longer live in a true representative republic or anything like it, no matter what superficial performative aspects remain. Fundamentally, the USA is now ruled by a King, not a President.
It will remind you of what conservatives (“the right”) are fundamentally about: conserving the power of the king and keeping the accumulated wealth of the nobility safe.
You’re watching the birth of a new American Empire of North Pacifica that includes the Kingdom of Canada, the Kingdom of Panama and the Kingdom of Greenland. These will be ruled by princes and princesses that all have the Trump surname.
Again, remember, that the King is openly calling for war to enlarge his kingdom into an empire and the nobles are falling in line.
No one has dared question this or to depose the king.
With regard to your idea, be reminded that Niall Ferguson already eight years ago stated that he was awakened by a friend's joke, "Make America Great Britain Again": he wrote a nice article about the monarchist model already apparent at the time.
I must warn you, though, that the drives remain undercurrents moving in history, and also Europe is living them: do note for example that the idea of "being tracked in all your monetary transactions """for some common good""" " is the translation of free people into "subjects". So: there are concepts about the population and the State that get instantiated in history by political forces and general powers.
Most big protests in the US happen in the summer, so I think it's worth considering that the large-scale resistance by the populace may actually happen in a few months. I am unclear on what this would look like, for example what level of organization, how regionally distributed, and what level of underlying violence (even peaceful protests) a subset of the protesters will carry out.
One major risk of a peaceful protest that has even a small amount of violence (property damage, etc) is that Trump actively wants to call out the military to break some skulls... and if there is violence, it's hard for the larger community to support the protests (even if the vast majority of people are simply expressing their legal rights to push back against what appears to be a truly tyrannical, unconstitutional government).
I hope you're right, but the thing I find most distressing about what's happening is how many people are in favor of it. Protests are for converting popular support into official actions. Trump won about half the votes. He didn't seize power in a coup or by holding the legislature at gunpoint. The people gave it to him. Some of those people may have changed their minds since then, but it doesn't seem like there are very many of them.
The real problem isn't Trump, it's the huge number of Americans who think what's happening is great. I don't know how you fix that.
I mean honestly even most kings aren’t that oversensitive; you’re really just looking at Thailand. Even fucking Putin isn’t really _this_ thin-skinned. Closest parallel I can think of is maybe Kim Jong Un?
Eh, SCOTUS still has a big opportunity to reign in the power he claims. The district courts are already doing their thing.
Arbitrarily searching and refusing foreign nationals at the border was always an executive power and we have temporarily chosen one who despises anyone not loyal to him. We get to reap the consequences for the next four years.
What do you mean reign in? Last year they in a shocking overturn of centuries of political thought came to the finding that the presidential is immune from criminal prosecution for his acts as president and then offered no actual guidance on how to determine whether an act was "as president".
Because power and legal liability are different. He can order a political opponent thrown in prison without cause. He does not have the power to do so, so that person would be freed by a court. Due to the immunity ruling, he is not liable for those actions now or after he leaves office unless he is impeached/convicted.
The extremely vague guidance was in part because SCOTUS only tries to rule on what is in front of them and also because they want any immunity decision to go through them.
I don't think you got my point (not a big surprise considering how your approach here is) which is that the Supreme Court have not shown an interest in curtailing executive power.
Your posting here is akin to a boiling frog insisting to all the other frogs in the pot that they'll all know when the water is too hot, so they should not worry.
I'm not sure what one has to do with the other nor why it would be an issue prohibiting a discussion. We might disagree about what your agenda is, but surely everyone has an "agenda". Were your responses not what you wanted to express to me?
I just find that an obtuse response that completely looks past the post its responding to without even acknowledging that fact is a bit disingenuous but, I guess feel free to convince me otherwise if you'd like. I see a lot of your posts in this thread arguing how things will be okay and we aren't in a constitutional crisis yet but that doesn't seem to be a great response to the point that it looks like Trump is driving imminently towards one. Feel free to let me know what I'm missing.
> I see a lot of your posts in this thread arguing how things will be okay and we aren't in a constitutional crisis yet but that doesn't seem to be a great response to the point that it looks like Trump is driving imminently towards one.
I understand that my emphasizing a difference between 'driving toward a crisis' and being in the midst of one may seem like splitting hairs but I hope it isn't.
If you take Trump at his word, the crisis is certain. But he bloviates constantly. He might try to disassemble democracy or ignore a SCOTUS decision. But he might back down. He's in a pretty decent spot and it doesn't make sense to risk it all on a few deportations or civil service firings.
So I disagree with the certainty of a constitutional crisis and hope it sounds well-reasoned. Remember this is the guy who promised to fix the budget deficit, crime, immigration, healthcare...
To your original point, I reiterate that the immunity decision - while terrible - doesn't grant the president any additional powers. It simply allows him to test the limits of existing authorities without legal consequence. Ignoring court orders is still illegal and SCOTUS did not change that in Trump v. US. I am not sure why saying this "missed the point" unless the point was to underscore the urgency of the situation.
Depends on the type of ruling. The executive can't make the courts convict people willy nilly. The executive can't make the courts rule in civil cases the way he wants them to.
But mandamus orders against the executive really can't be enforced by the courts, not even the writ of Habeas Corpus -- and famously so, I might add, since Lincoln suspended the writ even though the Constitution says only Congress can do it, and he refused to bring people accused of sabotage or insurrection to the courts.
They already said he has total immunity for official acts. What are they going to do when they ask him to stop doing something and he doesn't? It's not like they can punish him for it.
Yes, immunity means there are zero downsides for him to try illegal things. That doesn't legalize illegal orders, it just means they all have to wait for their day in court.
Call me hysteric, but I think if this is true - as described - it will be a slippery slope into much worse things.
If this is allowed, sooner than later the US will start to deny entry to all "undesirables", which translates to those that aren't 100% aligned with MAGA policies.
Just demand access to all phone data, run the data through some AI screening tool, which maps the data to some 2-D "desirability" scale.
Disagrees with Trump? No entry
Not opposed to LGBTQ topics? No entry
Reads too many left-leaning newspapers? No entry
And the list goes on.
I guess the (now at least 10 year old) tip still rings true: Travel with a burner phone, or some phone that you use minimally for anything other than travel.
A slippery slope I think describes it pretty well.
Right now it's an unflattering opinion of the current administration, being penalized without regard for the combined precedent of all previous administrations.
The kind of precedent that was within reach of all other US presidents from all parties continuously both before & after the Statue of Liberty got here, otherwise there wouldn't have been enough respect built in Europe for Liberty to be erected to begin with. It was obviously supposed to be a permanent icon representing the never-ending March of Freedom & Democracy, and only a real bozo could screw that up.
Yup, only an anti-American effort of some kind could drop the ball on that, and it's no accident.
What does it take before the same penalty applies for "lack of verifiable enthusiastic support of the current regime"?
Or "failure to make financial contributions to the party"?
Or even "providing insufficient information on associates who may not enthusiastically support the regime"?
It's not a slippery slope and if it was, you are at the bottom. It's more of a cliff and you already walked right off. ICE is kidnapping lawful residents and disappearing them to slave camps in the third world. Rogue U.S. Marshals deputies are occupying the premises of private businesses. The Secretary of Commerce is telling the public to buy shares of Tesla, on live TV. Reality has already hit bottom. If it feels like a slope, that is the unwillingness of people to admit it.
It is, and we are pretty close to the bottom. Civil liberties folks have been calling it out for decades. Congress has delegated far too much power to the President. Trump is testing and sometimes exceeding the boundaries of his power, but most of this stuff is legal. The executive shouldn't be able to unilaterally slap tariffs on things, but it can. The law should spell out the criteria for foreigners to be allowed to enter the country, but instead we give the executive total discretion, and the executive has granted the individual agents total discretion.
It was pretty clear for a long time that this stuff was ripe for abuse, and the President's own choices were the only thing preventing it from being abused more than it was.
Well, you put a fundamentally terrible* and vindictive person in that office, and surprise, he abuses this power. One of his first acts in office in 2017 was to abuse his ability to unilaterally dictate which foreigners are allowed to enter the country, no surprise it's even worse now. Despite this, there has been pretty much zero serious advocacy for restraining the power of the executive.
*All US presidents are terrible to some degree or another, but normally it's "I know what's best for the country and I'm willing to kill for it." Which isn't great, but it's better than this.
I reject your petty libertarian whataboutism. Snatching a guy off the street and selling him to a slave labor camp in El Salvador is not in the same category as Congress delegating tariff decisions to the executive branch.
My point is that the one enables the other. Congress gave the President tremendous power under the assumption that the President would use it wisely. Lots of people said, "but what if one day the President is a shithead?" They were ignored. Now the President is a shithead, and surprise surprise, all this power that was ripe for abuse is being abused.
This isn't whataboutism. It's pointing out why you don't give individuals huge amounts of power and hope they're cool.
It is. Your point is a non-point. Delegating tariff powers did not lead to the President kidnapping and selling lawful residents of America.
Delegating tariff authority to the executive: an arguably constitutional thing that Congress did deliberately and with due caution, which courts have gone along with.
Rendering lawful residents from U.S. soil to slave camps in foreign nations: no basis in statute or jurisprudence.
Of course not. Delegating tariff powers led to the President enacting a bunch of stupid tariffs.
Delegating immigration rules is what led to the immigration abuses.
If Congress had refrained from delegating so much power to the executive, this particular executive would not be able to do so much terrible stuff. This is exactly why a lot of people said that it was a bad idea to do that, but Congress was content to assume that the President would wield this power wisely.
Do people have experience traveling with burner phones to the US and how border control may treat them if they request them? Considering that border officers seem to be able to deny entry for arbitrary reasons despite visas acquired etc, and the fact that even requesting the unlock of one's phone signals suspicion from their part, I would be afraid to offer any more suspicion of hiding sth. Do people just use a brand new phone, or they try to make it look like it has been used for some time?
> Do people have experience traveling with burner phones to the US and how border control may treat them if they request them?
I used to do that and luckily they never asked to unlock them. What will happen now is anyone’s guess, but it is very difficult to imagine that the current shambles won’t embolden power-tripping border cops. There are reports of tourists being held in chains and being held in detention for days.
> I would be afraid to offer any more suspicion of hiding sth
So would I, which is why I won’t be going to the US anytime soon. It’ll be a shame not to see my American friends.
Border protection officers have always had a lot of power. Before, there was an understanding that they would behave sensibly and everything was predictable: if you had a visa or a waiver, you were in. Now, who can say?
Not having a phone, or having a burner is even more suspicious, comrade. Remember CBP doesn't need a reason, they have jailed me before as a citizen without even an arrest. You have basically no rights at the border.
If you want to talk about slippery slopes the one that scares me most is deportation of what Trump calls "bad hombres" to prisons in El Salvador — without any due process. No matter how bad the "hombres", they must be given due process. Without that anyone that the president decides can be sent directly to prison.
Shit even this is downplaying how bad that is, and what a bad sign it is. This isn't deportation the way I think most people understand it, they weren't sent back to their original country or a place that recognizes them as nationals. The united states is selling people into slavery to an allied state.
I think simply considering it a pilot program resolves this apparent contradiction.
Another view is that one of the few idealogical commitments of this administration is global bullies doing favors for each other. It's not totally clear to me which direction the favor lies in this one, but I think both sides expect it to be returned at some point.
I think it's a combination of cruelty and drinking their own kool-aid to an extent. They like hurting these people, and some of them probably believe to some extent that all of these people really are dangerous gang members. I doubt they care very much about who pays whom.
We don't need this vile tool, and it is extremely important that we not leave it functional for others to use, against us or against anyone.
Attacking the country to which you owe allegiance is a well-understood crime with normative punishments that we have used in living memory. We already have all the carceral tools we need to resolve this.
It's indeed a slippery slope. Ironically, USA, once the country of freedom of speech is becoming increasingly more reminiscent of the Soviet Union or China and their lack of freedom of speech.
> [...] Following his detainment, it's reported that his professional and personal equipment was reportedly confiscated, and the researcher was sent back to Europe the next day.
In the list that you filtered and hand picked yourself there is literally "War crimes committed in Serbia". The article linked is mentioning a researcher that spoke badly about the US president.
Help me understand how these two things are on same level, please?
If I'm not in front of a tribunal, formerly accused of committing/attempting to commit a crime, who are you to check my private chats?
This is not a problem with some messages' content. It's a privacy problem.
Would people here be happy if the USA (or any other country, for that matter) had the authority to record all your private conversations with friends at the bar and use them against you?
> If I'm not in front of a tribunal, formerly accused of committing/attempting to commit a crime, who are you to check my private chats?
CBP in the U.S. and equivalents pretty much everywhere deny foreigners the right to privacy. Heck, even in the U.S. the Fourth Amendment is taken to not apply at the border and ports of entry (and within 100 miles of any such, including the coasts!!). I too think that's quite a stretch, but that's how it is, and not just in the U.S.
I think there have been cases of CBP refusing entry to people who didn't even have smartphones with them.
So I agree that it is a privacy problem.
However given that we all have very little privacy when entering a country (even our own) the contents of this researcher's messages is relevant to deciding whether CBP acted reasonably even though we might say (I do) that CBP should never ask to see your communications without probable cause that you've committed or intend to commit a crime.
One advantage of being a US citizen. If I'm entering the country and they want to see my phone, I can tell them to get lost. Worst they can do to me is hold me briefly and confiscate my phone for a while. That would be annoying and costly but not a particularly big deal.
I can't do that when entering any other country, of course, but they seem to be much less likely to try it.
You might want to consider whether your definition and the government's definition of "briefly" agrees.
For example Carlos Rios, a naturalized U.S. citizen was held for a week before being released. Peter Sean Brown, another U.S. citizen born in Philadelphia was detained for three weeks. Source: https://www.propublica.org/article/more-americans-will-be-ca...
So far they are, for citizens. The worst case I've heard of was a citizen who was held by ICE for a few hours because they didn't believe him. Which, don't get me wrong, is bad given the racist underpinnings of it, but not something that worries me in and of itself. And yeah, they've gone so far as to deport US citizens from time to time over the years, but it's not anything like systematic.
They're not refusing entry or holding citizens indefinitely for refusing to unlock their phones at the border. Maybe they will, but until it starts, what I said holds.
When I say “they”, I’m referring to the people ICE reports to. Precedent and rules don’t constrain them, so what happened in past years seems irrelevant.
Weird, you’d think the researcher would be all over drawing the attention of vigilantes to them and their friends. I can’t imagine why they wouldn’t want Musk tweeting about them for weeks and trying to blackball them in the industry.
It seems like these comments could be released by a third party, the media, or the French government, without revealing the identity of the researcher.
I too wondered about this, but conversely you have to question how serious they could be given that US authorities just shipped the guy back to France without detaining him for days or filing any charges. It's a little hard to square the quoted suggestion that his comments could amount to terrorism with the actual response.
Not sure how it works in the US but many countries can choose to deny entry for any reason and my understanding is they don't even need to provide a reason.
If that is the case here then I really doubt the researcher was told that they have been denied entry due to their personal opinions on the Trump administration. This really just leaves us to speculate.
If legal authority or lack thereof is not the issue then the details matter if we're going to make an issue of this. I suspect that the researcher's private communications should not have caused them to be denied entry, though to be certain we'd have to see them.
Would a researcher who said something like "J6 should have gone all the way" have been denied entry in 2021? I suspect they would have, and that many would have cheered that refusal.
>Would a researcher who said something like "J6 should have gone all the way" have been denied entry in 2021? I suspect they would have, and that many would have cheered that refusal.
On what basis do you have for this belief? Frankly, I think that's facially ridiculous.
Sorry I have not heard of a single instance where a foreigner was denied entry into the US because of their beliefs about January 6, I think you're going to need to support an assertion like that when you say it has happened "lots"
I'm not implying anything, but anyone could have written a news piece like that.