[pudquick]

While I agree that this person was probably treated very poorly, I also want to point out that they were traveling for work purposes.

In the United States, non-US citizens entering the country for work purposes are generally required to get a visa. There are a few (and very few at that) business exceptions to this process, as listed here: http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/without/without_1990.html

He stated that he was: Trying to work several unpaid shows, he would receive meals and tips as compensation at one or more shows, and then he was going to write articles for Noisey (http://noisey.vice.com/) about it.

Bringing musical instruments with you (and admitting you are a musician - even if just as a 'hobby') on a supposed tourism visit and going to one or more cities where you did not have relatives or explicit non-business reasons to be there probably immediately triggered an investigation as to why he did not have a visa / whether he required a visa for his visit.

Yes - our border control system is horrible. I totally grant that. But this person was also explicitly not playing by the work visa rules either.

[nisa]

I don't have knowledge about the US border and visa requirements and procedures.

But even if he did made a mistake wouldn't it be easier to inform him before he enters the plane? And avoid interrogating him without letting him know what the problem was? The process he got ranks pretty high on the crazy paranoid side. I'm sure there are ways to solve the security and visa issues in a way that does not leave traumatic memories in every casual traveller that maybe or maybe not misunderstood the rules.

It's obvious that the border control knew what the problem was. Why not tell him the problem in a polite way? Or why is there no process that avoids that the person has to fly overseas in order to be scared and not allowed entry? I'm sure there are legitimate security related cases where such a behaviour would not catch a few illegal immigrants but all these stories read like they tuned their ROC curve to maximize the true positives and forget about false positives at all. It's the same idea behind the NSA spying an the no fly lists. A huge false positive rate no matter what the costs are.

Looks like this decisions are not the result reason and careful consideration but instead full paranoia mode. But it's easy to say that from the outside. We don't know.

[MichaelGG]

No, if they suspect you of lying, then of course they're not going to coach you on what's allowed so you can say the right thing. That makes no sense.

Their overall reaction seems way out of proportion here, I agree. But the general tactic of questioning someone seems sorta like the entire point of having these agents in the first place.

[nisa]

Maybe I'm naive but I'd thought along the line that they could issue a warning that he needs a visa to enter and will unlikely be granted access without it. If he gives false information in the visa that process is probably the only option left - but in my opinion this still does not justify the treatment.

[anigbrowl]

While I don't agree with the immigration rules, they are easily available and clearly spelled out on US embassy websites.

[MichaelGG]

Perhaps I don't understand what you're proposing? What would they warn people? He had to go through ESTA and within 2 clicks from the US Embassy Germany's page on that, it says if you're being paid for performing you're not applicable.

[anigbrowl]

But even if he did made a mistake wouldn't it be easier to inform him before he enters the plane?

Some airports in EU countries (eg Shannon in Ireland) have pre-clearance for passengers to the US at the departure end, ie you go through US passport control first and when you get on the plane it is legally a domestic US flight. This is unusual however, just as Americans typically deal with EU passport control at the EU end rather than before leaving the US.

If you want to avoid dealing with these problems in the airport, the solution is to apply for a visa from the US embassy before departure.

[nraynaud]

There is a big thing with US travel: ESTA, advanced passenger information, and the airline thing whose name I don't know (when you check in, they already ask nosy questions about your travel and your girlfriend). So they had a lot of opportunities to stop him before he got in the plane without putting up with the burden of a US visa. They chose to let him come knowing they would refuse him.

When you try to go to the US, you have to get in some kind of trap (there are those stupid questions which I guess are a framework to make you a liar to a federal agent if you get caught later), drop all your privacy (that was probably gone anyways with facebook and gmail), and they have ample means to close it on you without being an asshole.

[anigbrowl]

I haven't looked at the ESTA thing in a long time, but from what I remember it does ask explicitly whether you plan to work in the US etc. etc. If you tell a border inspector that you're planning to play at a music festival then naturally he's going to assume you mean ot engage in commercial activity. It is up to the individual to read up on the requirements and exercise some basic common sense (ie customs/immigration officials tend to be pedantic bureaucrats wherever you go, so be circumspect).

Sorry, but I think you're projecting your biases here with comments like 'they chose to let him come, knowing they would refuse him.' My reading is that he probably answered 'no' to all the ESTA questions and then confused the CBP agent by giving contradictory answers to his questions. I'm European myself so I'm not carrying a particular torch for US border agents here.

[nolite]

Any others like this in Europe? It makes soooo much more sense that way

[hrasyid]

"wouldn't it be easier to inform him before he enters the plane?"

Do you mean, the US should open border offices in all international airports? :)

[allochthon]

And such tacky behavior on the part of border security, if the description is accurate. It sounds like there had been a genuine misunderstanding.

[alexeisadeski3]

No, that behavior is typical of US law enforcement.

[jaeysin]

I don't think this is true. He explained that we would write a travelogue (that would be published), explore the music scene, visit his aunt and play free shows (where he might receive tips).

The article you linked says: "participation by amateurs in musical, sports, or similar events or contests, if not being paid for participating"

It sounds like he would solidly qualify for that, considering it does not sound like these were shows contracted specifically for pay.

And even if, somehow they suspected that he was in violation of these rules, it does not justify their actions.

[MichaelGG]

Strictly speaking, isn't getting tips and food being paid? After all, don't food service workers get paid in tips?

[andmarios]

You could always try paying your taxes in cannoli to see if food qualifies as payment.

[steverb]

Barter is taxable.

http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc420.html

[jaeysin]

No, I don't believe so. This is just done as a courtesy, for the audience to show their appreciation. It isn't even barter because there isn't a deliberate plan to exchange a good for a service. I suppose he could preemptively say, "I plan not to accept any free food or tips," but what good would that do really?

[unreal37]

If the customers were paying an entry fee, a cover, then it qualifies as work. And you have to apply for a visa waiver in advance before leaving your country.

[alexeisadeski3]

He _obviously_ said that he was going to be paid, in tips and food.

No one here is justifying the draconian actions of the border guards. We're merely pointing out that, based upon what he said, any border guard in a bad mood would refuse him entry.

[transfire]

What the frail are you talking about? Why the hell do we have such ridiculous laws to begin with? What the hell kind of country have we become? It's certainly not the land of the FREE! The terrorists won. We lost.

[anigbrowl]

This has nothing to do with the terrorists winning. The rather draconian immigration law was written in 1996. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_Immigration_Reform_and_...

[foxylad]

It's not the law - it's the way somone who broke that law was treated like a suspected drug-dealer. Sure, technically they had the right to deport him. But doing so in this case was heavy handed, and adding strip-searches and refusing to let him contact his girlfriend was purely obnoxious.

Although not directly linked to terrorism, this kind of behaviour is condoned now because the fear of immigrants generated by "terroism".

[droithomme]

People keep repeating that he broke a law and was planning to work for pay, the pay being a single meal offered by his host at one of the coffee houses he was going to play some songs at.

I have not seen any evidence though that someone giving you one dinner during a trip qualifies as pay in exchange for work.

It seems to me that it is a fairly common occurrence that one is treated to a meal by a friend or associate while traveling.

Does anyone have actual references to law that make clear that being treated to dinner qualifies as being paid for work and thus triggers a visa violation and reasonable cause for deportation?

[drewcrawford]

> I have not seen any evidence that someone giving you one dinner during a trip qualifies as pay in exchange for work

You are approaching this from entirely the wrong direction. Your statement is like saying "I have not seen any evidence that so-and-so is innocent of the crime".

It is the presumption in the United States that someone applying for a "non immigrant" (visitor) visa intends to illegally immigrate to the United States. And so it is the burden of the visa applicant to prove otherwise.

There does not need to be any evidence that one dinner during a trip qualifies as pay for his entry in the United States to be lawfully denied.

[shasta]

So this is how we should treat suspected drug dealers?

[ye]

You realize how high US salaries are? As a developer I can't get even half of what I'm making there, unless it's some ridiculously expensive country like Switzerland.

If US were to open its borders for anybody who wants to work, it would collapse your labor market instantly. And it won't be the poor mexicans looking for low level jobs. It will be Indians, Chinese, Russians moving in millions to get a piece of that pie.

That's US has an H1B work visa program. It's not perfect, but it lets the government control the influx of highly skilled and cheap labor that will take most skilled Americans out of business.

[nfoz]

I don't care what nationality they are. If they're working as hard as I am, then they should get paid as much. That there are salary discrepancies between countries has a number of compounding factors, but often the U.S. has explicitly meddled in those countries in order to keep the "good jobs" to itself. Screw that.

[ye]

> If they're working as hard as I am, then they should get paid as much

Yeah, and everyone should get a free house and a puppy.

Now back to the real world.

[w3dt]

It's not like you get anything if you move to US. You have to work for everything yourself. You don't even get healthcare if you can't afford it. Stop being stupid.

Salaries should be paid by how you perform not by your nationality.

[ye]

> Salaries should be paid by how you perform not by your nationality

Nobody said people should be paid by their nationality.

US is a multinational country.

Even within the US the salaries vary a lot depending on where you are.

You seem to confuse the real world with your imagination.

[tn13]

Every now an then these kind of articles get popular on HN and someone points out that the person had done some wrong. I find it incredibly irritating. The reason why border security or any law enforcement agency exists is because we want to maintain reasonable order, one way to achieve it is enforcement of existing laws.

But somehow enforcement of rules, some of which are highly questionable has taken center-stage over creating a sense of order. It appears that US government and the security forces are operating out of paranoia, hitting those who cant hit back. This is sad.

America is a good country, many people will still give an arm and leg to get migrated to this country yet, with passage of time, while we all love America, we have began to despise the government. In the longer run it will have serious implications.

[alexeisadeski3]

>But somehow enforcement of rules, some of which are highly questionable has taken center-stage over creating a sense of order.

Indeed. It is quite the serious problem.

[a8da6b0c91d]

> operating out of paranoia, hitting those who cant hit back

It's "anarcho-tyranny." The paradigm governs much US domestic exercise of power. John Corzine walks free, but sellers of unpasteurized milk to willing and informed customers go to jail. Self admitted illegal aliens write op-eds unmolested, but a zero risk short term visitor is denied entry.

[javajosh]

It's like saying about Rodney King, "well, our police are brutal, but after all he was speeding and resisting arrest." This kind of statement is a sophists trick, knowingly or not, to justify the unjustifiable.

I don't care what this guy "did", he shouldn't have been treated this way. If he broke the rules and we need to deport him, fine. Then do it. Don't strip search him, threaten him, go through his personal effects, harrass his friend, unjustly limit his ability to contact his people, and generally abuse someone who's trying to visit our shores who comes in peace.

The worst thing they should have done to him was force him to pay for a work visa and a "processing fee", and let him into the country.

[MichaelGG]

While I agree on the overreaction, no, it's not just about paying for a work visa. It's determining eligibility and whatnot. He even admits that it's "very difficult" to get such a visa. Certainly you don't want to encourage people to attempt entry illegally (under false premises) with the fallback of paying for the visa.

Going through his "personal effects" is one way to determine is someone is lying. Strip search seems ridiculous unless they felt he was smuggling something.

[astrodust]

I know someone that does booking for European musicians in the US and it's a gigantic hassle and a complete waste of time.

The process to even "prove" someone's a musician is ridiculous, and on top of that, you as much as need to prove that this "job" couldn't be done by an American. Music is not some commodity that can be provided by just anyone. You want a certain celebrity to headline, you don't just want some guy who happens to sound similar.

Since when is a touring musician stealing jobs? It's a process that's obnoxious and time-consuming even for someone who does it day in, day out. I can't imagine what a headache it must be for a hobby musician just trying to have fun.

[javajosh]

Well, I'm not going to get derailed by the not important conversation that you seem to want to start regarding appropriate work visa policies. Whatever that policy is, it CANNOT include the kind of stupidity described in this persons post. No more intimidation, no more molestation, no more angry, invasive, demeaning, bullying, just plain awful treatment of anyone like this, ever again, for any reason. Frankly we need to treat everyone with a great deal more respect, no matter what they're accused of doing.

[MichaelGG]

Just so we're clear, you're against strip searching anyone for anything, ever? So, if someone was smuggling in rare species or ivory or other contraband, the CBP should do what exactly?

[brianfryer]

If I may make an observation, you're making a reductio ad absurdum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum) argument.

[drewcrawford]

I'm not sure what you intend to say here. Reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate rhetorical mode.

[MichaelGG]

Correct - is there something wrong with that kind of argument? Examining edge cases can be revealing. I replied to someone saying that these actions are never justified to anyone. But that's not true.

Apparently everyone agrees it's OK to search a smuggler. What level of proof should CBP agents need to decide this?

What other potential criminals should be searched? Someone that appears to be intending to reside or work in the US despite not obtaining a visa? Can they search their belongings to help determine their intent? Or should they just close down the visa waiver program entirely and force everyone to clear positively before coming to the US, so that border agents have an easier time?

Really the only plausible thing I find is that for things like strip searching, a supervisor should need to agree that the person poses a smuggling or other threat that a strip search is likely to prevent.

But either way, it's far more complicated than "this behaviour is always unacceptable".

[rhizome]

Look, if one diversionary tactic doesn't work, that the TSA was just trying to make sure the IRS got its due (or whatever), that doesn't mean you move to another one in the form of a strawman, extrapolating to the most extreme case you can think of.

[jamesaguilar]

Hmm, alternately, don't make sweeping, unjustified proclamations?

[colomon]

I don't understand the reason, but from what I've seen the US and Canadian rules on these things are explicitly set up to screw small musicians. Like getting a VISA to do a single gig in a bar or restaurant costing more than the venue would normally be paying the musicians: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/08/29/canada-foreign-worke...

And I know our local (US) maritime music festival didn't bring in a Canadian duo the organizers love because of the expense of getting them a Visa to work here. (And when I later talked about it with the duo, they told me they now also have to deal with the IRS to play American shows!?)

[Kequc]

Maybe they could afford the cost of the visa if all those soccer mom's would just pay the RIAA millions of dollars like they are supposed to.

[spin]

If he broke the rules of his visa, then deport him. Stick him on a plane and send him home. (Perhaps refuse him entry in the future, if that's what the law says...)

In western democracies, we have this notion of "the punishment should fit the crime". All this harassment and intimidation at the border accomplishes nothing useful. It is power for the sake of power. It is entertainment for people who enjoy having power over other people (like CBP).

[dreamfactory]

Even if this were the case (and there are challenges as outlined by other commenters), it is entirely and obviously disproportionate. Do you seriously find it acceptable for your tax dollars to be spent this way?

Secondly, this all misses what I think was the real point of the story - that this is an outcome of the surveillance dragnet.

[MichaelGG]

Please explain "surveillance dragnet" - I didn't see any evidence of that in the translated article. I saw some "I wonder how they found my stage name", but unless he's taken some large precautions, that doesn't seem too far-fetched for Google to handle...

[dreamfactory]

He talked about them knowing about all his shows, stage name, and about facebook relationships. Translation is sketchy but he seems to be making a wider point that they knew about a bunch of stuff that would only be known by fairly broad and deep surveillance (as per the title of the article) and then applying a distorted interpretation.

[MichaelGG]

>fairly broad and deep surveillance

Also known as performing a search on Facebook? Just saying, there's an easy alternative explanation.

[dec0dedab0de]

Bullshit. This is someone who is on vacation, and happened to be playing music along the way. His only mistake was trusting in the rationality of people with badges. He should have borrowed a guitar after he got here.

[scelerat]

Playing some music and having appreciative people feed you and give you bus money simply shouldn't be the sort of thing a Work Visa regulates. This guy was a student traveling around the US, meeting people and writing about it. This is education, not work, and he had a student visa.

He just got a different education than he was expecting.

[megablast]

You are right, but the problem is where do you draw the line? And once you have a small intention of working and getting some reward, there is always a chance you might be doing other paid gigs that they could not find.

The simple fact is, if they have and reason to suspect you might be doing something a little wrong, they will deny your entry. Every country can and will do this. This is not an innocent until proven guilty option, this is ANY suspicious activity. You don't have a right to enter any country except your own.

[a8da6b0c91d]

I agree this guy screwed up. But the fact that you can't go three hours without seeing an obvious illegal alien in the US makes this whole thing hilarious.

It's the Anarcho-Tyranny thing Sam Francis wrote about. Be a middle class, law abiding euro with some undotted i's and get instantly deported. Hop the southern border as an illiterate with criminal convictions and it's "no problemo" as an apparent matter of national policy. Hell, illegals rally on the National Mall on a regular basis. As a border jumper it appears you can often get away with vehicular homicide and still not be deported. There are multiple publicized cases.

[podperson]

This seems to me like borderline racist generalization. I'm sure there are plenty of people getting away with vehicular homicide one way or another, and to single out a case (or several) where the perpetrator happens to be an illegal immigrant is missing the point.

The US treats people suspected of being illegal immigrants pretty badly. Heck, I'm a US Citizen, born in California, but raised in Australia. When I moved to the US in 2002 I had to wait six months (and provide all kinds of ridiculous documentation beyond my birth certificate and valid US passport) to get issued a SSN (and thus be able to work). Why? I was in Arizona and look kind of vaguely Hispanic.

[a8da6b0c91d]

Oh boo hoo. I went to Japan for extended periods a few times and they made me get a complicated visa, questioned me on entry, and made me register with the police as well as carry an alien registration card. Fucking good for them. It's their country and their right to control who's in it.

[halostatue]

Except that the person you're responding to was a non-resident U.S. citizen with valid passport and was still forced to wait by explicitly racist, undemocratic, and likely unconstitutional policies.

[droob]

Borderline?

[podperson]

Fair question :-)

[droithomme]

> "without seeing an obvious illegal alien"

Interesting claim. Can you describe them? Do they look like brown skinned native americans?

[mikeash]

I can't recall the last time I saw an "obvious illegal alien". What makes them "obvious"?

[rhizome]

It depends: what color is their skin?

[g8oz]

>There are multiple publicized cases. I love racist anecdata as much as the next guy, but if you can't figure out whats wrong with this line of argument you might want to sign up for a stats refresher.

[RandallBrown]

Couldn't they have just given him the option of canceling his shows? I'm sure he would rather have done that than be forced to leave the country.

[MichaelGG]

Again, put yourself in the position of trying to ascertain if a person is coming to the US under false premises. You've determined they have. Now, at the border, under threat of deportation, you're going to say "OK, call this place and tell them no", and you're going to take that as an acceptable answer?

That idea just doesn't work. Worse, it creates more incentives for people to try to come under a false premise, as they can just backtrack at the border and still get in.

This case sounds mishandled, for sure.

[RandallBrown]

I think there are gray areas here.

I wouldn't say this guy was here "for work" and I don't think he thought he was either. Hell, a different agent on a different day probably would have let him through.

There are better ways this could have been handled that wouldn't have led to deporting him.

[rhizome]

as they can just backtrack at the border and still get in.

And that is bad, why?

[MichaelGG]

If you take as a given that the US wants to enforce their immigration laws, allowing people to attempt to break the law with a penalty of them saying "ok just kidding" doesn't make much sense.

It's like the liquids ban at airports. If you ARE caught with liquids, there's no penalty, you just throw them away. So it's not a disincentive to try to bring liquids aboard. Just keep trying until it works.

[rhizome]

Each achieves the goal of keeping their intended contraband out, why make a big deal out of it? The angry boneheads at the TSA are not responsible enough to teach behavior modification.