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?
