[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]

a supervisor should need to agree that the person poses a smuggling or other threat

Just a "threat?" How about evidence?

[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?