What are you banned from? Why?(quora.com)
quora.com
What are you banned from? Why?
https://www.quora.com/What-are-you-banned-from-Why/answers/65209949?srid=uw7w&share=1
118 comments
> The particularly ridiculous part of this was that after I waited an hour for them to tear everything apart in my car looking for contraband -- at which point it's been verified that I was doing nothing wrong -- they continued to be completely antagonistic.
> He again and again seemed to imply that I might have been smuggling, after which I had to remind him that my car was extensively searched and cleared.
No no, you're definitely guilty. But if they can't find the contraband you're one of the smart drug smugglers, and thus even worse than the dumb smugglers they catch everyday.
> He again and again seemed to imply that I might have been smuggling, after which I had to remind him that my car was extensively searched and cleared.
No no, you're definitely guilty. But if they can't find the contraband you're one of the smart drug smugglers, and thus even worse than the dumb smugglers they catch everyday.
This story has the happy ending.
To understand what may happen to the US visitor read this book: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30524537-the-russians-ar...
I can confirm it's not fiction as it was written by father of my friend.
TL;DR from goodreads:
During a short business trip to California, Irishman Denis Sugrue was arrested and accused of spying for Russia. But this is no Cold War thriller - this is 2005 in Bush's America.
Facing ten years in federal prison, Sugrue must negotiate the corrupt corridors of American justice and attempt to convince FBI agents that the fact of his innocence outweighs the embarrassment of a failed prosecution.
To understand what may happen to the US visitor read this book: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30524537-the-russians-ar...
I can confirm it's not fiction as it was written by father of my friend.
TL;DR from goodreads:
During a short business trip to California, Irishman Denis Sugrue was arrested and accused of spying for Russia. But this is no Cold War thriller - this is 2005 in Bush's America.
Facing ten years in federal prison, Sugrue must negotiate the corrupt corridors of American justice and attempt to convince FBI agents that the fact of his innocence outweighs the embarrassment of a failed prosecution.
Custom and Border agents are usually mean. Maybe the only exceptions I saw were Hong Kong and Japan. But maybe I was just lucky there to meet a happy dude.
The agent did not over step his powers. In fact, the agent did the correct thing. No job. No entry. This is typical for most visa requirements. The officer will simply not risk it.
As an unlucky citizen of the world; At the different visa processes I have been (or friends) through, it is about checking the boxes. You got a list of stuff to have/have not. Check? Entry. Miss one? No entry. It seemed to me that your language, face, or accent don't play much.
The agent did not over step his powers. In fact, the agent did the correct thing. No job. No entry. This is typical for most visa requirements. The officer will simply not risk it.
As an unlucky citizen of the world; At the different visa processes I have been (or friends) through, it is about checking the boxes. You got a list of stuff to have/have not. Check? Entry. Miss one? No entry. It seemed to me that your language, face, or accent don't play much.
> In fact, the agent did the correct thing. No job. No entry. This is typical for most visa requirements. The officer will simply not risk it.
No, the agent said the reason was he lied. I imagine the magic word is consultant? We can do better. I remember Linus' recent rant about security people in the kernel. No, security is not paramount. In fact, security is useless without usability. This applies in the real world as well.
No, the agent said the reason was he lied. I imagine the magic word is consultant? We can do better. I remember Linus' recent rant about security people in the kernel. No, security is not paramount. In fact, security is useless without usability. This applies in the real world as well.
The agent thought the visitor lied because he doesn't understand the freelance culture. Also, having no "roots" to your home country is a red flag.
> Custom and Border agents are usually mean.
Part of that is an act to add pressure and help expose lies. But the American agents can be dicks at times, even for reentering citizens.
Part of that is an act to add pressure and help expose lies. But the American agents can be dicks at times, even for reentering citizens.
Honestly, the most racist person that I've ever encountered in my life joined the US Customs & Border Patrol 16 years ago and last I heard he was still there.
> Honestly, the most racist person that I've ever encountered in my life joined the US Customs & Border Patrol 16 years ago and last I heard he was still there.
It is scary to hear these things. Like a black truck driver who got pulled over who said he had stuff in the back that he had to deliver in so many hours and that he had a job to do and the officer allegedly replied the driver wouldn't have a job by the time the officer is done.
What is really screwed up is people assume that just because I put on a uniform or a badge, I am now somehow perfect and incapable of bias. No, that is obviously not true. We all have biases we need to be aware of and actively work to mitigate.
The funny thing is it doesn't even have to be about race. It could be that someone has a personal/departmental vendetta against you. Now every time you go to work they could pull you over and (I assume legally) ask you questions bla bla making you so much late every time. What are you going to do? What is your employer going to do except let you go? Who will believe you?
It is scary to hear these things. Like a black truck driver who got pulled over who said he had stuff in the back that he had to deliver in so many hours and that he had a job to do and the officer allegedly replied the driver wouldn't have a job by the time the officer is done.
What is really screwed up is people assume that just because I put on a uniform or a badge, I am now somehow perfect and incapable of bias. No, that is obviously not true. We all have biases we need to be aware of and actively work to mitigate.
The funny thing is it doesn't even have to be about race. It could be that someone has a personal/departmental vendetta against you. Now every time you go to work they could pull you over and (I assume legally) ask you questions bla bla making you so much late every time. What are you going to do? What is your employer going to do except let you go? Who will believe you?
Can't verify the truthiness of the story, but the US has become one hell of a paranoid state.
What bugs me the most is that a single ignorant person can have this much power, with almost zero recourse from the victim. But hey, "land of the free".
There is major difference in the rights you have before and after you cross the border. That's true for foreigners, but for citizens too.
The text of the Constitution disagrees:
>No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Note how the early part specifies citizens, the latter part specifies persons. At border control a person is in jurisdiction of the USA legal system and so, according to the literal text deserves equal protection of the law.
I'm aware the established interpretation differs, however, the writer of the amendment clearly meant to extend the rights and protections to all IMO.
>No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Note how the early part specifies citizens, the latter part specifies persons. At border control a person is in jurisdiction of the USA legal system and so, according to the literal text deserves equal protection of the law.
I'm aware the established interpretation differs, however, the writer of the amendment clearly meant to extend the rights and protections to all IMO.
The amendment repeatedly says "State", it isn't talking about the Federal government.
There's still due process to consider at the border, but applying border controls is pretty well established as due process.
There's still due process to consider at the border, but applying border controls is pretty well established as due process.
I'd missed that .. so they're not State borders, they're federal, and States don't enforce those laws.
Border controls wouldn't be wrong, it would be if you did unlawful searches and such that would be wrong.
Out of curiosity what legal move makes the State not obliged to prosecute the Federal government under this amendment for breaking the State law? States wouldn't be able to ratify it (it seems to me: otherwise they'd be making laws allowing unequal treatment of persons), so it must be pretty early and high-level - presumably there's a blanket Feds can do as they please (wrt state laws) that makes this possible?
Border controls wouldn't be wrong, it would be if you did unlawful searches and such that would be wrong.
Out of curiosity what legal move makes the State not obliged to prosecute the Federal government under this amendment for breaking the State law? States wouldn't be able to ratify it (it seems to me: otherwise they'd be making laws allowing unequal treatment of persons), so it must be pretty early and high-level - presumably there's a blanket Feds can do as they please (wrt state laws) that makes this possible?
Yeah, Federal law trumps state law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
> The amendment repeatedly says "State", it isn't talking about the Federal government.
True, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly decided that the 5th amendment imposes both due process and equal protection requirements on the federal govt, just as the 14th imposes them on the states. E.g., see Lawrence v. Texas.
> "...applying border controls is pretty well established as due process."
This is a pretty vague statement, but it not really true in any sense. The constitutionality of our current border control practices is still being vigorously litigated.
True, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly decided that the 5th amendment imposes both due process and equal protection requirements on the federal govt, just as the 14th imposes them on the states. E.g., see Lawrence v. Texas.
> "...applying border controls is pretty well established as due process."
This is a pretty vague statement, but it not really true in any sense. The constitutionality of our current border control practices is still being vigorously litigated.
Which physical border search has been ruled unconstitutional?
United States v. Cotterman, for example, declared a major piece of CBP's policy (forensic examination without probable cause) unconstitutional.
However you seem a bit confused. You started talking about due process, but now you appear to be shifting the goalposts to 4th amendment issues.
Your statement, "applying border controls is pretty well established as due process", doesn't really make sense. Due process is only one of the many thorny issues that embroil the border search exception, and the exception's constitutionality along due process lines has not been decided by the supreme court one way or the other. Perhaps I should ask you, how did you arrive at "pretty well established"? Can you provide a bit of case history?
However you seem a bit confused. You started talking about due process, but now you appear to be shifting the goalposts to 4th amendment issues.
Your statement, "applying border controls is pretty well established as due process", doesn't really make sense. Due process is only one of the many thorny issues that embroil the border search exception, and the exception's constitutionality along due process lines has not been decided by the supreme court one way or the other. Perhaps I should ask you, how did you arrive at "pretty well established"? Can you provide a bit of case history?
Aliens are detained upon arrival and may be detained at length. If the arbitrary permitting of entry that follows that detention wasn't considered due process we wouldn't have border controls.
My other response was a somewhat sarcastic reply to The constitutionality of our current border control practices is still being vigorously litigated.. It's the details that are being litigated, not the overall detention and search of foreign nationals.
My other response was a somewhat sarcastic reply to The constitutionality of our current border control practices is still being vigorously litigated.. It's the details that are being litigated, not the overall detention and search of foreign nationals.
Hungary might as well be Zimbabwe in the mind of most Americans (especially the type to be working as border guards at the US-Canada border). They don't really grok that modern civilization exists outside the US, England, Germany and France. I wish I was joking.
Whenever I see these sweeping statements about a characteristic of Americans, I'm always struck by how ignorant they are.
There are enough Americans of Hungarian descent in the US Rust Belt that the expression "Hunky" used to be heard there. I haven't been to Buffalo except passing through, but I bet the phone listings include a fair number of Novaks, Spisaks, etc.
He was a single guy with no family, no employer, no paid return ticket home that he'd lose by staying, who was crossing on foot from a country he wasn't resident in. Border guards will always get suspicious of that.
That might be the most ridiculous statement I've read on HN. To the point that I can't even figure out what you're suggesting. Are you saying Americans aren't aware Hungary is a modern civilization? I'd say that was pretty off base.
He's suggesting that most Americans don't own a passport, or have ever travelled outside the US, and have a tenuous grasp of world geography/geopolitics.
I'd find it hard to argue.
I'd find it hard to argue.
Yes it can be very hard for non-affluent Americans to travel if they're not near a border. Like anywhere else.
Americans knowledge of geography could certainly be improved. I don't think it means anything negative about the people though.
Americans knowledge of geography could certainly be improved. I don't think it means anything negative about the people though.
How is it not negative to be aware of the world around you, especially when you're (for now) the most powerful country in it and can vote for people that enact policies that have severe repercussions on many people?
Celebrating ignorance is one reason we have the current administration and Congress.
Celebrating ignorance is one reason we have the current administration and Congress.
You're putting a lot of responsibility on some regular people. Do you go around to Inuits quizzing them on Southeast Asia too?
Ordinary citizens do not vote on issues affecting an individual country. I'm sorry, you're just going to have to accept the fact that not all Americans are well educated.
Ordinary citizens do not vote on issues affecting an individual country. I'm sorry, you're just going to have to accept the fact that not all Americans are well educated.
>You're putting a lot of responsibility on some regular people.
Putting nuclear weapons at the finger tips of someone is a big responsibility.
>Ordinary citizens do not vote on issues affecting an individual country.
They vote on representatives that tend to have a policies that might. See for example those running on platforms on building border walls, kicking out immigrants, banning people from other nations from entering them, pulling out of climate change agreements, etc.
>I'm sorry, you're just going to have to accept the fact that not all Americans are well educated.
I accept that's the fact now. I don't accept that that should be a fact for the country's future.
Putting nuclear weapons at the finger tips of someone is a big responsibility.
>Ordinary citizens do not vote on issues affecting an individual country.
They vote on representatives that tend to have a policies that might. See for example those running on platforms on building border walls, kicking out immigrants, banning people from other nations from entering them, pulling out of climate change agreements, etc.
>I'm sorry, you're just going to have to accept the fact that not all Americans are well educated.
I accept that's the fact now. I don't accept that that should be a fact for the country's future.
You'll have to explain to me how a guy in Oklahoma having a passport and knowing the capitol of Hungary is relevant to nuclear policy and the threat of nuclear war. Your argument is all over the place. We're not all rich here in America, many of us weren't given great educations and have the money to travel. It isn't like Europe where another country may be within a couple of hours drive or train ride.
I also accept that we should do better in Geography. That'd be swell.
I also accept that we should do better in Geography. That'd be swell.
I don't think it's that ridiculous.
When you have tweets like this [0] from politicians it gives the impression that people do actually think like that.
[0] https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/705171336381923328
When you have tweets like this [0] from politicians it gives the impression that people do actually think like that.
[0] https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/705171336381923328
...well, I mean, it IS just next to Zimbabwe. Can't be that great, can it?
/sarcasm
/sarcasm
I would say this kind of denial is par for the course over at least the last 20 years.
Entry without a visa also represents a relaxation of policy that existed 30 years go (just 10 years for Hungary!):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_Waiver_Program#History
Entry without a visa also represents a relaxation of policy that existed 30 years go (just 10 years for Hungary!):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_Waiver_Program#History
This may be true, but in this case (and I'm sure many like it), entry with a visa would be highly preferable. At least you can plan accordingly if your visa application is rejected and have a more complete record of the application/rejection/reasons given.
As the submitter, my thoughts as well.
Regardless of the truth of the particular story related, there are sufficiently many similar stories I've heard that this one rings true.
And it's hugely negative for the US and its reputation abroad.
Regardless of the truth of the particular story related, there are sufficiently many similar stories I've heard that this one rings true.
And it's hugely negative for the US and its reputation abroad.
Anecdotally, I got roughly the same treatment when I visited England except that I was eventually permitted entry.
Your "except" makes this story 99.99% different from the one of the OP.
Of course, this is nonsense. Here's another data point; in this case, a female, American conference speaker was jailed at the UK border: https://medium.com/@rachelnabors/wtfuk-73009d5623b4
I don't know why anyone would bother to go to try to visit the US with the paranoid state that happens there right now (edit: and especially by road), there's countless people refused for random reasons, some arrested, taken possessions... I would personally never go there fearing that I'm on some kind of random list and arrested for no reason. There are plenty of other nice countries to visit with sane border control.
The US is a very large place with lots of unique and beautiful things to see. You can travel around the country via land without restriction, so the biggest problem is just getting in and out.
If you are white and a foreign national, the worst thing they will do is kick you out. They tend to jail their own citizens for much longer for no reason.
However, if you're a Muslim, come from a Muslim country, or are just dark-skinned, try not to be called a terrorist sympathizer. They will probably not provide you basic human rights and will ignore any embassy's attempts to get you back. If you're in the Southwest, try not to be called a Mexican, they may deport you there with no cause.
If you are white and a foreign national, the worst thing they will do is kick you out. They tend to jail their own citizens for much longer for no reason.
However, if you're a Muslim, come from a Muslim country, or are just dark-skinned, try not to be called a terrorist sympathizer. They will probably not provide you basic human rights and will ignore any embassy's attempts to get you back. If you're in the Southwest, try not to be called a Mexican, they may deport you there with no cause.
> If you are white and a foreign national, the worst thing they will do is kick you out
I've attended to computer security conferences in the past, that would not be the first time some security guy is arrested for no reason at the US border.
I've attended to computer security conferences in the past, that would not be the first time some security guy is arrested for no reason at the US border.
Being arrested is not a big deal. If you are arrested entering the country, unless there is some specific crime they think you have committed or were thinking of committing, they will just deport you. (Though, IANAL)
I'm not saying YAY ARREST WOO!, I'm saying at worst it's a waste of time and maybe money to get on a flight.
I'm not saying YAY ARREST WOO!, I'm saying at worst it's a waste of time and maybe money to get on a flight.
The question is cost vs benefit.
I am a US citizen and I expect to cross the border exactly once if I leave. We are the evil empire and sure that has benefits, but no place else has used large scale Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons which is probably why we assume others will.
We overthrow democracy's, assassinate leaders, torture, fund terrorists, and ignore the rule of law, but trust us we are the good guys just like those lovable Romans.
I am a US citizen and I expect to cross the border exactly once if I leave. We are the evil empire and sure that has benefits, but no place else has used large scale Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons which is probably why we assume others will.
We overthrow democracy's, assassinate leaders, torture, fund terrorists, and ignore the rule of law, but trust us we are the good guys just like those lovable Romans.
> no place else has used Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons
Well, no other nation has used nuclear weapons in war, but several have used chemical and biological weapons.
Well, no other nation has used nuclear weapons in war, but several have used chemical and biological weapons.
The list of countries that have used both biological and chemical weapons at scale is surprisingly short.
PS: Russia has probably used a small scale nuclear weapon for assassination. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvine...
PS: Russia has probably used a small scale nuclear weapon for assassination. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvine...
Radiological weapons like Russia has used for assassination are different from nuclear weapons.
That's somewhat semantics. The Effects of Nuclear Weapons (1964) for example lists types of Radiological weapons.
Are you for real? Poisoning with a radioactive substance is not at all related to a "small scale nuclear weapon".
Radiation killed him not poison. Similarly if you spread radioactive waste over a city it will kill people without a nuclear detonation.
But, I was simply conceding the point. Radiation is a very nasty way to kill someone over days, but they could have also used chemical means, a bullet, or a guy with a stick. They chose to use nuclear material to make a point.
Edit: Traditional bombs kill large numbers of people very easily. But, radiation poisoning is unusually nasty which is one of the reasons even kiloton scale nuclear weapons are considered so evil.
But, I was simply conceding the point. Radiation is a very nasty way to kill someone over days, but they could have also used chemical means, a bullet, or a guy with a stick. They chose to use nuclear material to make a point.
Edit: Traditional bombs kill large numbers of people very easily. But, radiation poisoning is unusually nasty which is one of the reasons even kiloton scale nuclear weapons are considered so evil.
"poisoning" means to introduce a harmful or deadly substance into someone or something. Even the very wikipedia article you refer to calls it poisoning.
Nuclear weapons cause radiation poisoning, but it's energy that's causing issues not hydrogen ions or photons etc. We don't think of burns as poison for good reasons.
So frustrating. I'm going to stop replying because your basic science is incorrect. Are you aware that gamma rays consist of high-energy photons?
Funnily I was banned on quora some years back. I can't remember exactly why, I think I refused to give my real name. Definitely no hate speech. Never looked back.
[deleted]
“I immediately noticed how itchy the Americans are. They thoroughly scrutinized and tapped down every pedestrian. Before me there was a group of three Canadian teenagers. It was pretty obvious that they are not al-Quaeda...”
This seems pretty simplistic. First, not sure if dude is being racist; second, al-Qaida will want to not look obvious. Profiling visitors isn’t a good approach for security.
This seems pretty simplistic. First, not sure if dude is being racist; second, al-Qaida will want to not look obvious. Profiling visitors isn’t a good approach for security.
edited
"Maybe in east europe they profile you based on how 'obviously dangerous you look',"
I am from Hungary too, and FYI: we are not a dumb group of people who all have the same opinion on everything, and we somehow all 'profile people based on how they look'.
I don't like that sentence of the article, and I don't like how you generalize too.
"but I'm actually glad American border security doesn't discriminate."
Agree on this.
"Secondly, a lot of east europeans again think they are somehow as respected as west europeans"
This sentence is so condescending again. I don't care how respected I am based on my nationality. People I respect don't give a fuck about my nationality, and that is good.
I am from Hungary too, and FYI: we are not a dumb group of people who all have the same opinion on everything, and we somehow all 'profile people based on how they look'.
I don't like that sentence of the article, and I don't like how you generalize too.
"but I'm actually glad American border security doesn't discriminate."
Agree on this.
"Secondly, a lot of east europeans again think they are somehow as respected as west europeans"
This sentence is so condescending again. I don't care how respected I am based on my nationality. People I respect don't give a fuck about my nationality, and that is good.
"but I'm actually glad American border security doesn't discriminate."
Wait, what?
Questioning a group of teenagers is discriminating them based on age, not skin color. They're looking for drugs.
Not everyone is treated the same by border control, thus it is perfectly viable to blend in and get away with whatever you're trying to do.
Wait, what?
Questioning a group of teenagers is discriminating them based on age, not skin color. They're looking for drugs.
Not everyone is treated the same by border control, thus it is perfectly viable to blend in and get away with whatever you're trying to do.
How do you know they don't question older ladies as well (on suspicion of drugs)?
There's no mention of that in the article.
There's no mention of that in the article.
I lived on the US / Canadian border for 5 years and traveled to Canada. I can tell you with all honesty that border guards on both sides were very hostile toward me on a very frequent occurrence. When I've traveled through South America and Europe it was very much the same. Hell, it still shocks me that there were soldiers on my train in France with machine guns roaming the aisles.
> it still shocks me that there were soldiers on my train in France with machine guns roaming the aisles.
It was probably their standard service rifles rather than machine guns. If it was around the mid 90s, the last three years, or some other period in-between with heightened terrorist threat, they were there for your security.
Unlike US policemen, French soldiers have never killed civilians until now, so you should feel quite safe when seeing them. They also don't arrest you, act aggressive or interact at all with civilians unlike border guards, so I don't see any link with the current topic.
It was probably their standard service rifles rather than machine guns. If it was around the mid 90s, the last three years, or some other period in-between with heightened terrorist threat, they were there for your security.
Unlike US policemen, French soldiers have never killed civilians until now, so you should feel quite safe when seeing them. They also don't arrest you, act aggressive or interact at all with civilians unlike border guards, so I don't see any link with the current topic.
This was in 2008. Yeah I'm totally ignorant on the type of guns so they probably were just standard service rifles. I frequently saw them traveling in groups of three and having dogs sniff me while I rode the train. Again, it was just a bit of a culture shock I'm not saying anything negative about it.
Your comparison of US Policemen and French soldiers isn't fair. I've known a couple people from France of Algerian descent, you can imagine their opinion of French police isn't too dissimilar of yours about US police.
Your comparison of US Policemen and French soldiers isn't fair. I've known a couple people from France of Algerian descent, you can imagine their opinion of French police isn't too dissimilar of yours about US police.
> you can imagine their opinion of French police isn't too dissimilar of yours about US police.
I was talking about the soldiers though, and how they are actually harmless to civilians.
Police is of course a different matter, even though they still are far less lethal than in the US. As far as I know, in the US soldiers don't patrol the streets and their role is taken by the police force however, so that's why I compared them. My wife is not from Europe and I live in the "Arab district" of my city, so I have a reasonably good understanding of how our police force works.
I was talking about the soldiers though, and how they are actually harmless to civilians.
Police is of course a different matter, even though they still are far less lethal than in the US. As far as I know, in the US soldiers don't patrol the streets and their role is taken by the police force however, so that's why I compared them. My wife is not from Europe and I live in the "Arab district" of my city, so I have a reasonably good understanding of how our police force works.
I understand. I'm simply saying that it's a poor comparison due to the differences in the relationship between Local police and federal (agencies/soldiers,etc) and in France with police/Gendarmerie/etc.
Yeah, I had close to the same as the OP happen to me on the Canadian side. I was booted at Peace Bridge, told to go home, but without the ban (I don't have any criminal record, DUI or anything like that). I simply caught an amped up guard on a bad day. Had it happened to me a couple of years later it would probably be a ban. I realize now that the frequency of my border crossings made my story inevitable --- it's literally playing the odds.
I've been back to Canada a few times since, always with great trouble at the border. 2 hour plus interview. It completely ended an LTR that I had with a Canadian (I lived close to the border at the time) and the idea of emigrating there.
I don't go back, because it's not worth it and honestly it's Canada's loss, not mine.
I've been back to Canada a few times since, always with great trouble at the border. 2 hour plus interview. It completely ended an LTR that I had with a Canadian (I lived close to the border at the time) and the idea of emigrating there.
I don't go back, because it's not worth it and honestly it's Canada's loss, not mine.
> Hell, it still shocks me that there were soldiers on my train in France with machine guns
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Thalys_train_attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2015_%C3%8Ele-de-Franc...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Thalys_train_attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2015_%C3%8Ele-de-Franc...
It baffles me why they are like that considering how many hundreds of miles of completely unsecured border there are between the two countries. You could easily cross the border by canoe without seeing more than a handful of other people who would have no way of knowing your nationality. I believe it is even legal to cross the border like that as long as you promptly report to one of a handful of customs offices when you reach shore.
Crossing by land will always be more annoying than crossing by air or train, I've found. With the exception of flying into JFK and still being in line for an hour as an American.
I'm not sure I believe you that anyone would carry a machine gun on a train - the long barrels would make it impossible to even turn around on a train.
https://cdn3.img.sputniknews.com/images/103710/55/1037105579...
That is Charles de Gaulle Airport, but I have seen the same type of soldier at train stations in France. Regardless of what it's called, that is the type of weapon they have.
That is Charles de Gaulle Airport, but I have seen the same type of soldier at train stations in France. Regardless of what it's called, that is the type of weapon they have.
Yeah, that is not a machinegun. Looks (and should be, because France) like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAMAS, but I can't find the proper variant.
And I think that when we demand respect towards proper terminology from people in other fields, we should have the courtesy to do the same. It is similar to calling a monitor a PC or a computer case a hard drive. And being afraid of weapons does not matter here, quite many people are afraid of computers also.
And I think that when we demand respect towards proper terminology from people in other fields, we should have the courtesy to do the same. It is similar to calling a monitor a PC or a computer case a hard drive. And being afraid of weapons does not matter here, quite many people are afraid of computers also.
Yeah that’s an assault rifle.
"I'm not sure I believe you" are really caught off guard by someone speaking imprecisely about firearms.
Probably a bullpup machine gun, like the Famas, especially for the French military. Not sure about the terminology though: is a machine gun? automatic rifle? Frog here, not used to guns.
Automatic Rifle. The major difference between an automatic rifle and a machine gun is the latter is designed for sustained automatic fire. Machine guns will typically be quite a bit heavier since that helps with sustained fire.
Submachine guns are automatic pistols, which is to say they fire lower power pistol ammunition, and, like pistols, usually have shorter barrels than rifles. Typically also have accuracy comparable to pistols rather than rifles.
Submachine guns are automatic pistols, which is to say they fire lower power pistol ammunition, and, like pistols, usually have shorter barrels than rifles. Typically also have accuracy comparable to pistols rather than rifles.
Where are you from where it isn't like this?
Oh I have a good one. I'm banned from the Apple Store developer program before I even published an app there.
I created an account to publish my (modest) app to the App Store. I overlooked the security question because this is a really stupid way of securing an account. I paid the super hefty annual fee to get in.
Later down the line, I had to authenticate myself for some reasons I forgot. As a 2FA thing, they asked me for my security questions, which of course I didn't have (the communication with the friendly Apple guy on the phone was interesting "Try `security questions are stupid` as an answer?").
In the meantime, they told me they required some additional documents to confirm my subscription. I politely asked them to cancel that, I'll create a new account since there was apparently no way I could recover the original one. The problem escalated until someone from the US called me to deal with the problem (I was located in Asia at the time).
The not-so-friendly person on the phone refused to help me recover the account, as well as refused to cancel my current subscription (the payment had already been approved and the money withdrawn from my credit card payment, they didn't want to issue a refund. "We can't do that", she said).
I then argued that well, I will not provide whichever document they asked, and they'll have no choice but to 1. cancel my subscription and 2. pay me back. The unfriendly person told me that I'll get a refund in a month, and that I was subsequently banned from the App store and the developer program. She then proceeded to hang up on me. I won, and take pride of being banned from such a toxic place.
I created an account to publish my (modest) app to the App Store. I overlooked the security question because this is a really stupid way of securing an account. I paid the super hefty annual fee to get in.
Later down the line, I had to authenticate myself for some reasons I forgot. As a 2FA thing, they asked me for my security questions, which of course I didn't have (the communication with the friendly Apple guy on the phone was interesting "Try `security questions are stupid` as an answer?").
In the meantime, they told me they required some additional documents to confirm my subscription. I politely asked them to cancel that, I'll create a new account since there was apparently no way I could recover the original one. The problem escalated until someone from the US called me to deal with the problem (I was located in Asia at the time).
The not-so-friendly person on the phone refused to help me recover the account, as well as refused to cancel my current subscription (the payment had already been approved and the money withdrawn from my credit card payment, they didn't want to issue a refund. "We can't do that", she said).
I then argued that well, I will not provide whichever document they asked, and they'll have no choice but to 1. cancel my subscription and 2. pay me back. The unfriendly person told me that I'll get a refund in a month, and that I was subsequently banned from the App store and the developer program. She then proceeded to hang up on me. I won, and take pride of being banned from such a toxic place.
Funny, I am banned from Canada. I told them I had a criminal record in the eTA form. (mistake, never do this, they can't check)
I was arrested when I was a 10 year old for being a little shit and stealing candy from a pharmacy. They asked for all court records which of course I cannot supply and a certificate from the british police stating that there are no warrants out for me and such.
Such a certificate is only sent if you can prove an address in the UK with two utility bills, I haven't lived in the UK for 3 years. -- I managed to get this but now they want my entire police history, which can only be obtained by a freedom of information request and will return nothing since my record is sealed.
Effectively, I'm banned from Canada.
The kicker? I've been to Canada a bunch of times because my company has studios all over the place there.. but now I can't go due to this eTA thing.
I was arrested when I was a 10 year old for being a little shit and stealing candy from a pharmacy. They asked for all court records which of course I cannot supply and a certificate from the british police stating that there are no warrants out for me and such.
Such a certificate is only sent if you can prove an address in the UK with two utility bills, I haven't lived in the UK for 3 years. -- I managed to get this but now they want my entire police history, which can only be obtained by a freedom of information request and will return nothing since my record is sealed.
Effectively, I'm banned from Canada.
The kicker? I've been to Canada a bunch of times because my company has studios all over the place there.. but now I can't go due to this eTA thing.
Slightly off-topic: Arrested at 10? Jesus, I thought the US was harsh. I don't know how you grew up or if your folks were around but even a tough talking to by the pharmacist / cop would seem more the order of the day.
[deleted]
[deleted]
This seems like pretty much standard procedure going back at least 30 years. No family ties (wife, kids)? No property? No verifiable job to return to? No Entry. No discrimination there.
Bit of an arse for suggesting he was lieing about being a freelance web dev though.
Bit of an arse for suggesting he was lieing about being a freelance web dev though.
It was never "the land of free getting into it". Crossing the Atlantic ocean was always somewhat difficult task.
But now, it's apparently harder to cross the border than then ocean. :-)
But now, it's apparently harder to cross the border than then ocean. :-)
I know this border. The guards there questioned me too (and I'm a citizen) for 30+ minutes. They're either bored or overly suspicious.
[deleted]
Sigh, I'm banned from the local mall. I won't get into why.
[deleted]
I seem to be shadow banned from here and I have no idea why!
You're banned because there's evidence that you broke the HN guidelines egregiously using another account. Obviously we crack down on that hard.
If that's an error, you're welcome to email [email protected], as is anyone with questions about their account.
Banned users' good comments are often unkilled by fellow community members using HN's 'vouch' feature.
If that's an error, you're welcome to email [email protected], as is anyone with questions about their account.
Banned users' good comments are often unkilled by fellow community members using HN's 'vouch' feature.
I can see your post fine.
friedButter(5)
why kind of US visa lets you freelance in America? I think all work visas need you to have an employer.
Perhaps some sort of tourist visa?
Perhaps some sort of tourist visa?
He clearly states that he was only trying to enter the US for an hour or so to view the US side of Niagra Falls, not to work, so yes, he probably was going for a tourist visa.
missed that. Thanks.
/r/thathappened material.
In any case, I myself (an american citizen) have been treated with extreme disrespect and a total lack of professionalism when crossing the border at this same checkpoint by car from the Canadian side to the American side. The particularly ridiculous part of this was that after I waited an hour for them to tear everything apart in my car looking for contraband -- at which point it's been verified that I was doing nothing wrong -- they continued to be completely antagonistic.
Edit: I filed a complaint about this, which did lead to a supervisor calling me back and talking to me on the phone for probably 30 minutes. The supervisor was reasonably pleasant, but unapologetic. (Is it reasonable that someone be forced out of their car in the middle of winter and not allowed to get their coat?) He claimed that he put a "warning" on the officer's record, though this didn't seem credible. He again and again seemed to imply that I might have been smuggling, after which I had to remind him that my car was extensively searched and cleared.