Nobody claimed Europe was worse than China, only that if you wouldn't visit China for this reason then you shouldn't visit Europe (or the US) for the same reason.
Speaking of being disingenuous, when you say "Police can search phones to counteract human traffickers", did you think critically about that at all before writing it? Given one of the stated justifications is "preventing terrorism", and the UK has been illegally arresting Palestine Action supporters as terrorists for over a year, this seems a little naive at least.
> Nobody claimed Europe was worse than China, only that if you wouldn't visit China for this reason then you shouldn't visit Europe (or the US) for the same reason.
That would be nonsensical. If you have anti-Xi propaganda on your phone (which could be the reasons you mention), you have nothing to fear in Europe or in the US and a lot to fear in China.
The US is actually worse than both China and Europe because it's 18th century amendments protect human traffickers. Although they do what they can to not have to adhere to those, especially in border control.
> What about Palestine Action...
I'll limit myself to the LARP about "oppressive Europe invigilating your phone".
How about the US? What I'm going to write smells of "whataboutism", but it's tragic how more and more of the world is becoming police states. Going to the USA, they want your social media accounts. Regardless of that, the border thugs can probably demand you unlock your devices or they'll detain you for weeks on end, without any repercussions, because that sort of lawlessness is government policy now.
> In the US, not disclosing a password is explicitly protected (5th amndmnt),
That's great but of exactly zero help if you're trying to travel to the US and CBP (or ICE) are staring you down. Even if they don't gulag you, they can always just reject entry for any non-citizen (and these days even some citizens it seems.)
Any country can reject non-citizen entry, for any reason or no reason at all. In fact, part of a definition of a country is ability to practice control over its territory and who is and is not there. This necessarily includes border controls, which any country can decide to make as onerous as they please. No non-citizen of a country has any right to be present in it, except as permitted by its government, so any country if free to make it as hard as they wish to enter for non-citizens. This may not be a good idea, but control over a territory is literally part of the definition.
> Any country can reject non-citizen entry, for any reason or no reason at all. […] This necessarily includes border controls, which any country can decide to make as onerous as they please.
Or, a country could set rules that specify what they will and won't do as part of their entry controls. Just because it's a kind of an "absolute" power doesn't mean you can't still self-impose rules. The benefit being attracting more leisure and business travellers.
They have? What was the relevant case? It was my understanding that some lower courts have ruled one way, others the opposite. There are also many nuances in particular cases (e.g., the police wanting a broad search of a device for something that may or may not be there versus them knowing for a fact a device has certain information they want).
Federal agents couldn't possibly have been aware that executing people on the streets is a violation of those people's rights, so they are covered by QI.
At least 225 judges have ruled in more than 700 cases that the administration's mandatory immigration detention policy likely violates the right to due process[1] The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause generally requires those having federal funds cut off to receive notice and an opportunity for a hearing, which was not provided in many of DOGE's spending freezes[2]